"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

A Critique of Dorothy Patterson's Article in the Fall 2008 Southwestern News: "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

The Southwestern Theological Seminary news magazine devoted the entire Fall 2008 issue to the subject Modeling Biblical Womanhood. The magazine featured six articles on women, with one being a profile of Dorothy Patterson, wife of SWBTS President Paige Patterson. Another article, authored by Mrs. Patterson, is entitled "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?" The SWBTS news magazine used to be available online, but unless it has been moved to a location on the Internet of which I am unaware, the only way to now read the SWBTS news magazine is to subscribe to it or be an alumni of the seminary and receive it free of charge in the mail. This post is a critique of Mrs. Dorothy Patterson's article "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

I would like to begin by commending Dorothy Patterson for her clear writing style and the abundance of Scriptural references in support of her thesis. I found myself agreeing with the overwhelming majority of what Mrs. Patterson writes. I confess to having learned more about God's word through Mrs. Patterson's writing and believe Mrs. Patterson not only capable of teaching me the Word of God, she actually did teach me through her exegetically sound and expositionally superb interpretions of the Scriptures. Her exegesis of the Hebrew word banah (Gen. 2:22 - "to build") which was used by Moses to describe God creating woman, and her exposition of various Scriptures to show the equality of worth in both man and woman was indeed enlightening. I couldn't help but think Mrs. Patterson would make a great Hebrew or theology professor if SWBTS were ever to be in need of one.

However, I would like to point out three inconsistencies in Mrs. Patterson's article. These inconsistencies are revealed to prove that Mrs. Patterson's personal convictions of what a Christian woman can and cannot do, are not based upon the biblical paradigm she constructs in her article, but in fact exceed the teaching of Scripture and are based on her cultural, personal and comfortable preferences for women. Though Mrs. Patterson's personal convictions about "womanhood" are amoral, they become problematic when are they are called "biblical" and forced on all Southern Baptists.

Inconsistency #1

Mrs. Patterson writes her article with a spirit of authority based on what she calls the "clearly inspired written words of God," and constructs a broad biblical paradigm for womanhood from these clear words; however, Mrs. Patterson then goes further and writes that the biblical paradigm for womanhood can only be discovered through "meticulous exegesis,""deep study,""learning at the feet of one with the exegetical tools for deep study," in order to "ferret out" exactly what God is saying about His paradigm.

It would seem to me that if God's paradigm for women for all time is supposed to be clear, then He will make it clear. Mrs. Patterson does construct a clear biblical paradigm for women (see below) with which we all can agree, but she goes further and writes of her extra-biblical expectations for women that exceed the very biblical paradigm she constructs. All conservative evangelicals agree on the equality of men and women before God and the character of both Christian men and women as Mrs Patterson reveals. But the fact that evangelicals disagree on whether or not to limit the functions and roles of women in culture, society and the church, should be a clear indication that Mrs. Patterson's personal "paradigm" for women, which exceeds her own biblical paradigm, is based upon her own cultural and personal comforts. This inconsistency between the actually biblical clarity regarding womanhood and Mrs. Patterson's professed ability to "ferret out" God's true intentions about women should cause any Christian to pause and reflect on the appropriateness of demanding others to conform to personal convictions about women that go beyond the simple and clear biblical paradigm for womanhood.

Inconsistency #2

Mrs. Patterson's lays out a very clear Biblical paradigm for womanhood, a paradigm based on the character qualities of God's people, which could also be called a biblical paradigm for manhood; but Mrs. Patterson then reveals some of her own personal preferences, convictions and cultural comforts regarding women - convictions that exceed the very clear biblical paradigm of womanhood she herself constructs in the article.

Mrs. Patterson summarizes "A Paradigm of Biblical Womanhood" this way (my comments follow each point and are in parenthesis):

Who Is She?

(1). She is created "in the image of God"(Gen. 1:27). (But so is a man created by God in the image of God).

(2). She is assigned to be a "helper" (Gen. 2:18). (But so is a man called by God to be a servant).

(3). She is uniquely fashioned with a life-bearing womb and the capacity for nurturing (Gen. 3:16,20). (Here, alone, the woman is distinct from man as intended by God).

(4). She is identified as a "joint heir of the grace of life" (I Pt. 3:7). (But so is a man a joint heir of the grace of life).

What Does She Do?

(5). She "fears the Lord" (Pr. 31:30) (But so should a man).

(6). She develops a "gentle and quiet spirit" (I Pt. 3:4). (But so should a man be quiet and and gentle and not give full vent to his emotions as does a fool. Prov. 29:11).

(7). She honors her husband and the Lord through her diligence and creativity (Pr. 31). (But so should a man honor his wife through diligence and creativity).

(8). She is committed not only to human relationships but also to God (Ru. 1:16) (But so is a man committed not only to human relationships but also to God).

(9). She is available (I Sam 25:32-33) (But so is a man to say, "Here am I Lord, send me.")

(10). She does what she can, however humble the task (Mk 14:8) (But so should a man do everything with humility. Can you even imagine the opposite: "I will NOT change the baby's diaper, I'm a MAN!").

(11). She shares the good news of the Gospel(Acts 21:9) (But so does a man share the good news).

(12). She participates in mentoring and discipleship (Acts 18:26) (But so does a man disciple others).

(13). She accepts God-given boundaries and recognizes the authorities mandated by Scripture (I Tm 2:9-15) (But so should a man accept God-given boundaries, and interestingly, the boundaries in this I Tm 2:9-15 text, which include "women should not adorn themselves with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, etc . . ." are not even mentioned by Mrs. Patterson in her article, with good reason, as I will show momentarily).

I cannot think of one professing Christian, or one evangelical, or even one Southern Baptist who would disagree with the above Biblical paradigm. It basically describes all Christians - both men and women - except in the specific area of child-birth.

Imagine if this were the actual paradigm within the Southern Baptist Convention. Can you imagine the cooperation among married women and single women? Can you envision the acceptance and love among working women and stay-at-home moms? Can you grasp the cooperative nature of families where men stay at home and raise the kids while mom works, and those families where mom stays at home with the kids and dad works? It would seem to me that in the above paradigm all Southern Baptists would be accepted as cooperative, evangelical Southern Baptists.

But Mrs. Patterson allows a few sentences in her article to reveal the true desires of those who wish a uniform "paradigm" for womanhood within our Convention - a "paradigm" that exceeds the Scriptures. It is a paradigm built on personal, cultural and comfortable convictions regarding women that some Southern Baptist conservatives, including Dorothy Patterson, wish to enforce on all others. Allow me to explain. Dorothy says that "evangelicals" propose a "biblical" feminism that is detrimental. She writes:

"The ever-confusing "double speak," even in the church, is an effort to accomodate the corporate agenda coming from spiraling feminism and the personal whims arising out of a postmodern culture." Dorothy Patterson, from paragraph one in "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

I would like to ask Mrs. Patterson a few questions about her statement above. Where in the biblical paradigm you delineate for us is a prohibition for a woman to work in a corporation or outside the home? Where in the biblical paradigm is there the possibility for "double speak" in the church? What Christian would ever disagree with your (13) descriptive qualifiers of the "Biblical Paradigm or Womanhood?" Could it be that what some Southern Baptists disagree with you over is not the biblical paradigm, but your cultural and personal paradigm you wish to enforce on all women?

"Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary must equip women to . . . disciple women for Kingdom service." Dorothy Patterson, from paragraph four in "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

Again, I would like to ask a few questions of Mrs. Patterson. I commend you for desiring women to teach women, but where do you and your husband assume that a woman cannot teach a man? You have done a great job teaching in this article yourself, but what causes your discomfort for a woman to teach a man Hebrew at your seminary? What causes you angst over a woman discipling a man in the things of God? Is it number (13) in your "paradigm" above? Are you basing your views the specific role of women, as vague and unspoken as they are in your article, on I Timothy 2:9-15, a passage that also seems to prohibit women from wearing "pearls," "gold," or "braids" in their hair? Could it be that the proper interpretation of this passage can only be arrived at when understanding the culture in which Timothy found himself at the time? In other words, do you believe that the only true interpretation of this I Timothy text is that a woman cannot ever teach or ever have "authority" over a man whether it be in culture, the church or the home? Is that your view? If so, just say it. If not, then I think you must allow for differing interpretations of this text. Interestingly, you yourself refrain from defining the boundaries of I Timothy 2:9-15 in your article. If they were important, it would seem to me that you would have listed them in your "paradigm."

Inconsistency #3

"Every woman serious about selfless service to Christ must ferret out the divinely appointed design from the Creator Himself even if that prototype does not appear palatable to contemporary standards and agendas." Dorothy Patterson, from the last paragraph, "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

The SWBTS news magazine goes on to profile women at Southwestern, including Mrs. Patterson, who are all homemakers, married, and committed to raising children in the home while the husband makes the living. I enjoyed reading all the profiles and commend each woman for following God's design for her life.

However, these Southern Baptist Theological Seminary women, including Mrs. Patterson, need to realize that there are some Southern Baptist women who are divorced or single, some Southern Baptist women who are living as a single-parents raising their kids alone, some Southern Baptist married women who work outside the home while raising their children as well, and some Southern Baptist women who are are missionaries, teachers, and corporate officers with authority over men - and they all are fulfilling God's design for their lives. I commend these women for following God's design for their life just as much as I commend the SWBTS women who stay at home, raising kids, while their husbands preach.

And, I have Scripture on my side as I commend both groups. The biblical paradigm for womanhood Mrs. Patterson gave in her article is fulfilled by each of the categories of women listed above. It seems to me that the real cultural dilemma going on in the Southern Baptist Convention is the pushing upon all women an extra-Biblical paradigm for women that reflects the 1950's "Leave It to Beaver" model of womanhood and has nothing to do with Scripture, but everything to do with middle class America a generation ago. Southern Baptists must learn that to believe in the inerrant, infallible, sufficient Scripture is the ability to lay aside all cultural biases and follow Scripture alone.

I believe Mrs. Patterson has been clearer in previous years regarding her personal convictions about womanhood. For instance, in the article she wrote in 2001 entitled Lies vs. Truth: The Question is Biblical Womanhood, she argues for Convention wide acceptance of her interpretations of I Timothy 2:9-15. I'm hoping that Mrs. Patterson's vagueness about her personal convictions regarding women in the SWBTS Fall 2008 newsletter reflects a more cooperative spirit with other Southern Baptists who do not share her personal convictions that exceed the clear biblical paradigm of womanhood. I hope so. However, if Mrs. Patterson's article is simply a subterfuge to hide the real paradigm for women that is held by Fundamentalists in our Convention, then I have a prediction to make. If we as a Convention do not resist demands that all Southern Baptist conform to an extra-biblical paradigm of womanhood, a paradigm that is often passed off as "biblical," we will find our growth and influence in the kingdom of Christ diminished for decades to come.

195 comments:

I just do not understand why Mrs. PP thinks she speaks for so many Baptist women. Her life and financial status is so different than most. It is great that she does not have to work, but most women do not have that luxury.It is fine that she has her view but their is an alternative.

I sometimes wonder if Dorothy and Paige understand that their extra-biblical view of women is simply a cultural bias and personal conviction of Southern comfort.

Try having an American Indian woman in the 1800's, or a Chinese woman of this century, or an Egyptian woman of the 14th Century all live like Mrs. Cleaver.

It's not going to happen, not because those women can't fulfill the biblical requirements of womanhood, but because the women mentioned above don't live in the cultural climate of Mrs. Cleaver - or Mrs. Patterson.

Those who are pushing the idea of subordination of women to men in general may find out the hard way that if you keep pushing someone down they eventually push back. The good ole boy SBC leadership network has for years been able to use the label of "liberal" to dismiss and marginalize those who disagreed with them, when there weren't really many true liberals around to begin with. But if they continue to try to marginalize at least 50% of the membership of the churches (that is, the women; more likely well over 50%), sooner or those "powers that be" will discover they don't have nearly the power they think they have.

I wonder what steps Dr. (Mr.) Patterson took to ensure that no men would read this article by Dr. (Mrs.) Patterson and possibly be taught something about Biblical languages or doctrine? We know that it's very important to him that no woman teach a man such things, right?

The Surgeon General is kind enough to put warning labels on cigarettes to inform us that smoking them is hazardous to our health. It would be nice if Dr. (Mr.) Patterson prefaced his wife's article with something like, "Warning: This article was written by a woman and contains teaching on Scriptural truth and Biblical languages and as such could be harmful to a man's spiritual health."

Dog gone it, Wade -- you went and quoted her and I learned something from her, too. I feel a need to go take a shower and wash all this female instruction off! :)

When I first saw the magazine I was afraid I would not manage to get through the articles without either laughing or getting sick. When I actually read them I surprised myself by doing neither. Yet I do come close to the latter when I allow myself to think about the many people who are misled by such teaching. So many women turn from Jesus because some of His followers tell them He loves them less than men.

What is the difference between Mrs. Patterson’s teaching in her article and standing before a group and teaching? Obviously men will read the article, and possibly learn from it. Though I suppose there are some who would notice it was written by a woman and refuse to read it.

All the “women’s academic programs” listed concern teaching women. Is this the limit? I didn’t take the time to check their catalog to see if women were allowed any more in any other program, such as music. But it sounds like men can teach men or women but women are limited in ministry to other women only. One woman profiled who plans to minster to college students had to find a church large enough to have separate programs for male and female college students.

I guess if these people had their way, when I visit the hospital as a volunteer chaplain I should only visit the women patients. When I pray in a church service, should the men be warned to close their ears? Or is it ok if I cover my head (I Cor. 11)- sorry, I usually don’t.

I noticed that 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is quoted. (One seldom sees verse 8 quoted nearly as often though they are related, since verse 9 says “I also want...”) Yet on the cover women are pictured wearing gold and many pearls. Should we be glad that at least none of them have braided hair? (Also, the baby has a pacifier in her mouth, but I won’t argue that issue in this blog.) Mrs. Patterson wears gold in her pictures, though I guess she should be commended for only gold and no pearls or braided hair!

Wade, you say that all conservative evangelicals agree on the equality of men and women before God. Obviously they do not. If they did, they would not place the restrictions on women that they do. It’s like the saying: some are more equal than others.

There’s a lot more I’d like to say about the article and the whole issue of the magazine but I’ve said enough for now.

Ultimately economic demands will force the Patterson(s) to change their thinking ... and the same with their followers.

Compared to the 50's to 80's, the work force in the world has changed (for the better). Women are asked to work to help families raise their standard of living. I praise the women and men, who can afford to stay at home and take care of their family. But not all can do this.

Also, it's a shame to not utilize the talents of more than 50% of the population. So much intellectual power is wasted, when one follows the Patterson(s). I mean, by sticking to their version of the roles of men and women in Church and society.

In the end, economic forces will play a major role to alter their thinking.

As usual, Wade does a great job of deconstructing the issue. He does the work and allows us to conclude that this is just another example of the "leadership" of the SBC trying to impose their own unscriptural agenda on everyone else.

How I resisted Mrs. Patterson's influence (and Dr. Patterson's indirect influence): I put my copy of this magazine, received as a '93 grad of SWBTS, directly into the trashcan upon its arrival--without even cracking it open.

What is clear is: SWBTS is a poorer academic institution--theologically and otherwise--now than it was 15 or more years ago. I won't support it in any way, though I graduated from it, until it returns to the sanity its students and staff enjoyed there in those days. For now, I steer potential students elsewhere--and to none of the SBC's seminaries.

And, as if it were important to mention: if I'm not mistaken, it was Mrs. Dilday who wasn't employed outside her home--not Mrs. Patterson. It seems that Mrs. Patterson actually could learn a few things about becoming a biblical woman and wife from Mrs. Dilday.

While you triumph a supposed check mate against Mrs. Patterson with the statements against her as "extra biblical" and "personal preferences, convictions and cultural comforts regarding women" and for yourself "I have Scripture on my side", I have one observation. Several comments in the section, yours included, infer that the interpretation will change as culture shifts. Statements such as:

"Leave It to Beaver" model of womanhood and has nothing to do with Scripture, but everything to do with middle class America a generation ago.

and

In the end, economic forces will play a major role to alter their thinking.

If indeed culture is our interpretive grid then what other sections of scripture change with the times?

You wrote: "However, these Southern Baptist Theological Seminary women, including Mrs. Patterson, need to realize that there are some Southern Baptist women who are divorced or single, some Southern Baptist women who are living as a single-parents raising their kids alone,"

From a position of comfort and security, no Christian woman or man can ever sit in judgment on women who must struggle in this world to care for their children and for ill spouses, with meager support from others.

The agenda the Patterson(s) are bringing to Christians are extra-biblical and their personal preferences. Except, they would like the rest of the Christians to follow their thinking. And they seem to be forcing it on others.

I think from an apologetic point of view, people see an issue and try to find a solution. Many times the solotion is not a biblical one, but rather our tendency is to become Pharisaical. I think in many ways SB leaders see problems in the American home...real problems. Children are neglected and not being disciples. The "obvious" cause is that mom's no longer are with the children, thus the "obvious" answer is that the place for the woman is in the home. How can we convince the convention this is the solution? We can tell them it is a biblical one. This is only one problem among many I think the leadership is trying to address by making their womanhood claims.

I will take exception….. The Mormons have successfully sequestered women and still do. Economics have not pressured Mormon women into the workplace and they “still know where their place is”….

Two items;

Wade, In your listed Paradigm and comments….. Didn’t Jesus exhibit each of these and ask all of us to do so as well?

Also, Jesus lived his life as an example of God’s desires, if the placement of women is as the SBC proclaims it then, why didn’t Jesus marry Mary Magdalene? Or did he? The SBC should investigate this…. Oh yea, the SBC protested the da vinci code movie… Heck, now I am confused….

I really am perplexed as to why any Believer would want anything named after them? Luther was correct in not wanting a group to call themselves by his name and I sure wouldn't want anyone to say: "Hey I'll meet you at the Native Vermonter Center for ________ (insert joke here).

I do have one question. I tend to believe as you, but haven't been able to reconcile one issue to my satisfaction. While many claim the 1 Timothy 2 scripture prohibiting women from adorning themselves as strictly cultural, I've heard complimentarians argue for 2:12's validity today since its reinforced by an appeal to scripture in 2:13. How do you deal with this?

Side note....I have no ulterior motive. I'm honestly seeking the opinion of someone I respect.(isn't it sad I feel the need to say that?)

If we as a Convention do not resist demands that all Southern Baptist conform to an extra-biblical paradigm of womanhood, a paradigm that is often passed off as "biblical," we will find our growth and influence in the kingdom of Christ diminished for decades to come.

The danger you point to, Wade, is surprising given the purpose of the Conservative Resurgence: to re-establish the Bible as the source of consistent doctrine and practice. It is disturbing to me that it is necessary to warn the leaders of the CR against the practice of reading into the Bible what they want it to say. This goes for pretty much all of the recent activities that you've complained about or even that they complained to you about.

I think specifically about the hedging of the neo-Law that goes with the arguments against drinking any form of alcohol. There simply is no biblical prohibition against it and Peter and others concoct a fabrication that the wine Jesus created and drank was non-alcoholic in support of a position of abstinence. Honestly, Akin's arguments on the subject remain the best in part because he argues so strenuously from the position of wisdom rather than from the position of law.

And that is the essence of the New Testament, to be honest. God showed with the theocracy based on Law (first through Moses, then through judges, then through kings) is inherent ineffective as long as we put our primary focus on the Law and not on the Law-giver. So Jesus came to show that the desire of God's heart is that we be conformed to the life Jesus led: not one of rule fulfillment but one of true convenant relationship.

That covenant is a spiritual one and not a material one. It does have the same notion of material sacrifice that is implicit in the Law--i.e. our hearts aren't fully "in covenant" with God if they're also in covenant with material goods and money. But for whatever reason, Spirit-inspired Paul wrote that all is lawful for him while also noting that all is not gainful/good.

I very much see the faith walk as a matter of growing up men and women of God not who seek to find rules to impose on themselves and on others but as a pilgrimage of grace and of wisdom. The grace is necessary for when we act without wisdom. The wisdom that we gradually accrue over time proves the wisdom of the gift grace itself: that rules don't conform a person to Christ Jesus, but instead the Holy Spirit does that.

I celebrate Dorothy Patterson's effort to "ferret out" of Scripture clear meaning. It is truly wonderful when we speculatively try to apply the meaning of Scripture to our own lives in an act of faith and obedience. And there is nothing either sinister nor wrong about the act of theological speculation itself and the attempt to pragmatically apply that speculation. There have been many times God has led me to some neat (and sometimes magnificent) insights through that process.

But we must regard speculation as what it is: an attempt to read past what is "on the page" to some deeper meaning. It borders on gnosticism when you then systematize that speculation into rules that others must follow and that act itself is a repudiation of the very principles of the Conservative Resurgence that her husband and others so proudly led.

Let's get back to the Bible, indeed and in deed. Let's allow the kind of speculation that permits the Holy Spirit to interact with those who truly seek for deep understanding. But let's not systematize it to the point that we violate biblical injunctions about adding to the weight on "the people" or against adding to the proscriptions and punishments of Scripture itself.

I'm going to diverge from the politically correct diatribe and give Mrs. Patterson some support.

I think the least preached verse in the Bible is Titus 2:5.

I also think it is a shame to trot out culture and economics as somehow forcing women into the work force. Those married with healthy husbands women who choose to work outside the home (and those who don't) do just that--they choose.

It saddens me to see "women's issues" all rolled up into one ball. It is totally possible to have women as teachers, and as pastors, and still hold that woman has a specific responsibility beyond childbirth in the family.

The greater issue, as I see it, is not equal rights for women. Rather, it is equal responsibilities.

There are so many myths running amok in our world today, but I am going to state again:

It most emphatically does NOT take two paychecks for the average family to survive above poverty level. That has long been shown to be bunkum. The stay at home parent is not confined to upper economic levels.

The next myth is that housework and childcare is somehow not utilizing a woman's full talents or is somehow "less than" if she has a career.

The whole "unless women are allowed and supported in doing this or that they are being suppressed" often flows from those two myths. After all, if a "trained monkey" can do the traditional jobs of women, and if women are going to be starving en masse unless some Lincoln frees these slaves, it is really unChristian not to support women's rights.

But perhaps we should be thinking not of what is best for the men, or best for the women, but what is best for the children.

That means dad may have to shoulder the provider role EVEN IF he finds it means not taking the job he would love most, but the one best for his family.

That means mom may have to curtail her outside the home activities during the childrearing years EVEN IF that means society doesn't toss her as many bouquets for her "accomplishments."

It will probably mean less soccer teams, or cells phones, or suvs, or latte's, etc to make a happy life on one income.

And while I truly believe in equallity between the sexes, and that God can call whomever He chooses to do whatever job He wants them to do within the church, I find this article a very slippery slope.

Pastor Burleson's wife has chosen to have a career outside the home, so we are being treated to the denigration of a woman who disagrees with that. Plain and simple.

And the truly frightening part is this: if we explain away this part of the Bible as "oh that was just about THEIR culture", how do we answer the drunkard when they explain away the scriptural "be not drunk with wine." How do we answer the homosexual when they choose to explain that prohibition as "just cultural"? Do we explain away baptism, tithing, the idea of pastors in general, meeting together as believers, or any other tenet of the faith as cultural?

Let's keep the issues clear and simple:

It is possible to believe that in Jesus men and women are equals and both should have true economic freedom as well as true equallity in the church and still believe that there are specific roles lauded in the Bible.

WOMEN can be and do anything. MEN can be and do anything. WIVES AND MOTHERS have specific roles delineated by scripture. HUSBANDS AND FATHERS have specific roles delineated by scripture.

This time I strongly disagree with Pastor Wade that this is an extra-biblical view of women or "is simply a cultural bias and personal conviction of Southern comfort." As to American Indian women in the 1880's, etc, are we to assume Christianity never reforms culture?

I disagree with Mrs. Patterson that her ideas are hard to discern in scripture without some exalted leader to teach us.

We need to be very clear here: it is possible to believe in both equallity for all and specific roles without bowing at the altar of subordination of women.

I wonder what will happen to the, more than capable, women who write for LifeWay. This quarters Bible Studies for Life series have the following women listed.

Amy Summers gives bible commentary interactive elements for this quarter. Amy lives in NC and is a graduate of SWBTS.

Lisa Marino wrote the teaching plans for this quarter. She is over the women's ministry at a church in TN.

I hope mentioning this does not cause them to lose their gift to write for us.

I also wonder if those fundamentalist out there will stop using LifeWay material or demand that the stuff written by "females" be shown so it can be overlooked by real godly men. (sarcasm intended in this paragraph)

I, personally, find nothing in Wade's post which states or implies that culture is the "interpretive grid" for understanding scripture. The paradigmatic points are character-related issues. Each individually, and all together, may be upheld and honored and followed (as delineated) by any woman in any cultural/societal/familial position (and, as Bro. Wade showed, by any man...). It is not culture acting as the interpretive grid for scripture, it is scripture acting as the interpretive grid for the life of faith for God's people in Christ.

I have read your comments twice, and I'm still not sure what you are saying. Does the Bible mandate that a married woman with children should be a stay-at-home mom or not?

Before you think I am a proponent of career women, let me say that I gave up my career before I ever had children. My oldest is in college, and I am still a homemaker. Just because I have chosen to stay at home doesn't mean I would superimpose my personal decisions on anyone else.

I would like to focus on your remark that Titus 2:5 is the least preached verse in the Bible. My pastor preached on this verse recently as he is going through Titus line by line. So does being a "keeper at home" mean that a woman cannot work outside the home or that she should not have a career that detracts from her family's best interests?

Now that women in the professional ranks at SWBTS have been put in their place (Dr. Klouda), I'm wondering if the secretaries should be worried about their positions. After all, if they are married and have children they should be at home, according to Dorothy Patterson (aka the Hat Lady). On second thought, maybe all the secretaries at SWBTS are either single women or better yet men!

And I guess we shouldn't have any female school teachers either. The ones I know have the same schedule as their children, but they should send their kids off to school each day and just stay at home by themselves? That doesn't make any sense!

I know there are women who have abandoned their families in order to climb the corporate ladder, but many working women have not. I resent this legalistic, narrow-minded misinterpretation of Scripture, and I simply will not stand for it!

Need I remind everyone of the Proverbs 31 woman? She was a shrewd business woman, even though some would argue that she was a worker at home. Go back and read this passage again!

I hope Cindy K. is reading this post and if so, I have a question for her. Don't you think that Doug Phillips and the Hat Lady are in collusion? After all, Mrs. Patterson endorsed a Vision Forum book that I would rather not name which addresses this topic.

I believe Paul has quite a bit to say in Galatians about what is going on here. In Galatians 1:6-7 (NASB), Paul writes:

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ."

I love the beginning words of Galatians 3:1:

"You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?"

The SBC is being bewitched by the Pattersons and others, and it's time we faced up to this fact. They no longer preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but a different gospel. It's the Gospel PLUS the subordination of women, which is unbiblical!

If we buy that the only consensus Statement of Faith we have .. the Baptist Faith and Message .. represents what Baptist believe (including the preamble), than we also buy that fact that nobody speaks for nobody. Except perhaps a "corporate spokesman" who is expressing the voted and stated will of the convention.

Other than that, I can assure you that Dr. Patterson doesn't speak for me, and Mrs. Patterson doesn't speak for Peggy.

Particularly that last part. :)

Perhaps the real deal is she IS speaking, and people seem to be listening.

I think culture absolutely does affect scripture's interpretation. If not, then why DO we allow women to wear jewelry and fancy hair. And why not go back to all the OT laws and practices found in Leviticus, etc.?

This is a 3rd tier issue that divides unnecessarily. it is only elevated to a primary concern by those who don't get their way.

I AM saying that a WIFE AND MOTHER should be tending to her family rather than pursuing a career.

I AM saying there are hard choices to be made. You will note I was referring to wives with healthy husbands. Single women and women who's husbands CANNOT support them will be in the workforce--and should expect equallity.

As for Proverbs 31, it clearly reads not as a woman in the workforce but rather as a woman who's homemaking responsibilites include financial matters.

So I say it again: it is possible to be every whit a feminist in the belief in equallity in the workplace and still believe in scripturally taught roles for both men and women.

So, yes, my understanding of Titus 2 is that the ideal for a wife and mother is to be at home.

Not all mother's are wives--so some will be in the workforce. On that I agree.

Some husbands are disabled--so the wife will be in the workforce. On that I agree.

Some women will not marry--so they need to be in the workforce. On that I agree.

But it is diningenuous to imply that holding to the traditional roles for men and women in the family is at odds with holding to equallity.

It is possible to do both.

And culture is driving the feminist movement far more than it drove the "traditional" view of the family.

I also wonder if those fundamentalist out there will stop using LifeWay material or demand that the stuff written by "females" be shown so it can be overlooked by real godly men. (sarcasm intended in this paragraph)

Wed Oct 15, 11:59:00 AM 2008

Sir, complementarians do not deserve sarcasm simply because of their theological position, or to be treated as if they are ungodly. Some are ungodly I'm sure, as are some egalitarians. Some can reject women writers in Lifeway material and do so with a clear conscience and irenic spirit.

It's very possible that the egalitarian perspective is correct, and that my own view (complementarianism) is wrong. I will have to study both sides, seeing that I respect people on both sides of the issue. And though I doubt it, I might even change my mind, who knows?

Perhaps the leading entertainment value in observing "churchy" people in different cultures is discovering how they substitute their cultural values, prejudices, or sentimentality for religious practice or Scriptures. SBC'ers are practiced at finding this sort of thing in Catholics or Jews, but modern-day fusions of personal preference into religion are oh-so-much-more fun!

Thanks for your clarification. I thought you were leaning in that direction, but I wanted to be certain.

I agree with what you have written for MYSELF, but I know many Christian women who balance careers and their families beautifully. For example, my younger daughter attends a Christian school, and there are many wives/mothers serving as teachers and staff. As a stay-at-home mom, I will not sit in judgment of them. They are fulfilling their call in Titus 2:5, and anyone who would disagree is a LEGALIST.

This is a dangerous mindset for a Christian in our fallen world. I'm sure that Dorothy Patterson's next mantra will be that all mothers should be homeschooling their children.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you. This is a judgmental attitude that I simply cannot accept.

OK, that's fair by me. I can't help but think my opinion is the correct one and others are welcome to it. :) But you're right, this isn't a first-tier issue at all. The irony of all of this is that Christ is at times overshadowed by the very conflict waged in His name (at least, I've been guilty of that).

"However, if Mrs. Patterson's article is simply a subterfuge to hide the real paradigm for women that is held by Fundamentalists in our Convention, then I have a prediction to make. If we as a Convention do not resist demands that all Southern Baptist conform to an extra-biblical paradigm of womanhood, a paradigm that is often passed off as "biblical," we will find our growth and influence in the kingdom of Christ diminished for decades to come."

Wade,

This was an excellent article.

This is exactly what I have been thinking about the True Woman Conference that I just attended. We wouldn't disagree with anything said there (some minor quibbles, maybe) but all the talk about God raising up an army to be "counter-cultural" has me thinking that we haven't heard the rest of the story about the pardadigm for all women in all times in all cultures in all circumstances and all of it based on one's own personal and cultural biases.

You are also right about trying to put the grid of Patterson's paradigm for biblical womanhood over a woman from another culture. Just won't work. And if it doesn't work, then there is something wrong with the paradigm, not with the woman we are trying to place under our personal grid.

"The Surgeon General is kind enough to put warning labels on cigarettes to inform us that smoking them is hazardous to our health. It would be nice if Dr. (Mr.) Patterson prefaced his wife's article with something like, "Warning: This article was written by a woman and contains teaching on Scriptural truth and Biblical languages and as such could be harmful to a man's spiritual health." "

Justa believer,

LOL! This was great and very true.

Now, would you come and wipe the Diet Coke off of my computer screen? ;-)

"This is a dangerous mindset for a Christian in our fallen world. I'm sure that Dorothy Patterson's next mantra will be that all mothers should be homeschooling their children. "

Wanda,

Doesn't she already teach that Christian women should not use birth control? No birth control is part and parcel with homeschooling, especially because, in most circumstances, private schools is out of the question.

I am asking this as a pro-life, conservative, homeschool mom of 10 albeit "liberal" and "white-washed feminist" in some of my brother's and sister's eyes simply because I have disagree with their own paradigm for biblical womanhood.

I think if you use the grid used to show both man and women are equal as Wade does and then he assumes X, he has now moved to allow a cultural interpretive grid. You can make Wade's same argument for children too. That said, shall we allow the children to do all they please? If so my 11 year old would like to pastor your church for your pay, or Wade's. What would be wrong with that. He is called, surrendered to this calling in the church and has demonstrated God's anointing on his life, besides, economics as they are, it would really help our family unit out. And to top it all he studies and can preach. Need I add the verse "no one should despise his youth?" If I take the argument to it's full conclusion, then I can reasonably land here without much effort. And I could give a watershed of scripture references to boot.

I have an offer for you if you will accept. I have been wanting to hear from someone who attended The True Woman Conference. Your assessment of the Conference sounds like what mine would be. I love and admire those who put it on, and would never disagree with their view of Scripture, Christ and God's grace. However, I keep thinking there is something unspoken that I'm missing. A paradigm that extends beyond what is publicly stated.

Here's my offer. I would like you to evaluate The True Woman Conference and its purpose. Then, if you would allow, I would like others to hear from you by posting it on this blog on Friday for the weekend. I realize that you may not be able to do this, and if you cannot, I understand.

I like your spirit - and I think you are able to articulate for others what I've been saying maybe even better than I since you are a true woman graced to teach others.

Wade beat me to it. And you've lost me on "if you use the grid used to show both man and women are equal as Wade does and then he assumes X, he has now moved to allow a cultural interpretive grid". Not sure what assumption "X" is, or how to use an undefined grid to prove the existence of a "cultural interpretive grid". I honestly think you and I would agree more than disagree (I'm a member in a similar organization in TX), I just don't see this post going where you say it leads.And, no, you needn't add 1 Tim. 4.12 because it doesn't fit the situation.

Linda: You say that it is acceptable for a single mother, or a woman whose husband is not healthy to work, yet wouldn't their children supposedly suffer the same fate as those whose women choose to work? This is what I am having a difficult time with...it seems like double standards.

BTW It was culture that first began to change slavery. MLK appealed to the culture. He also was the culture. I don't think all culture is wrong. And that would include with women today. It's not wrong to change with culture as long as it does not go against scripture.

Why would it be so difficult to embrace those who choose to be at home such as you and I or working women? And I do believe that there are many times in this economy that one needs two paychecks to avoid poverty.

By the way,many women have always worked outside the home throughout history, so did children(which never should be), the working conditions for them were terrible. There was debtors prison. This was all changed not by the church, but by culture.

My point is, if the intrinsic value is in the being, then why place those other parameters (intellectual abilities, creativeness, character qualities or understanding of Christian fidelity) on my son. Are we not both arguing for greater grace here? If not, then those parameters are not the basis or the criteria from which we judge equality. Linda I think displayed the problem also. When you put other issues in the pot (Ms. Clever and economics) to make your point, then it is true you are now using something outside of scripture to grid your interpretation and guide your conclusions. Does not this make you just as guilty as the one you critiqued? It seems to me if I have read you correctly, that I can place any myriad of beings with the same value in the way you have formulated your critique of Ms Patterson (adding your man equation) and conclude countless other things (which is my X). As for a women compared to a small child, clever don’t you say. Does grace argue for value in being or ability? I just read your critique as circular reasoning applied to make a point. Much in the way I’m making mine. Anyway, interesting read. Gota run-

Ahhhhh…I was getting ready to let Linda have it with both barrels, but Wade went and spoiled it all with him saying, “We should accept people from all viewpoints.”

First I was going to challenge her saying, “I think the least preached verse in the Bible is Titus 2:5.”

The background of this verse is Paul telling Titus to teach the older women to teach the younger women: (verse 5) “to be sensible and clean minded, spending their time in their own homes, being kind and obedient to their husbands, so that the Christian faith can’t be spoken against by those who know them.” (Living Bible)

Verse 5 is so popular with the CR group; it’s given as a reference for the new BFM that says:

“A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ…to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.”

BTW, my daughter-in-law agrees completely with this statement as she helps her husband while providing the income as he home schools their five (three born in Jerusalem) sons.

I was going to challenge Linda or anyone if they’ve heard a sermon or a SS lesson on Acts 15:10, 28, which says:

“So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentiles believers with a yoke that neither we are our ancestors were able to bear?” (Verse 10 NLT)

“For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision, and ours, to put no greater burden on you than these necessary things:” (Verse 28 Holman Bible)

The ‘inerrant people’ must look at one of these verses as an “illusion”, while I see the Bible recording perfectly two Christians expressing their different opinions. I believe one is expressing the views of God as he was taught by Jesus, and one is expressing the views of man from tradition. But I’m called a non-Bible believer by the CR bunch.

You wrote: "But perhaps we should be thinking not of what is best for the men, or best for the women, but what is best for the children."

Thank you. I agree whole heartedly. If my niece Lindsay had not been university-trained and a ROTC participant, then she could not have helped the children in Iraq as a Navy nurse. Women there do not want themselves or their children to be seen by American male doctors.

But the female Navy nurses are very popular with the population. My niece will someday follow her father into the practice of medicine as an M.D. In the meantime, she IS helping the children in Iraq and she is very much a good-will ambassador for our country. If Linds had 'listened' to the far-far-right teachings of ultra submissiveness; so many of her little patients would have gone untreated. She developed her GOD-GIVEN SKILLS and she now she serves children and the Lord. Fortunately, as a child, Linds was never exposed to the extreme fundamentalist far-right kind of thinking. She was brought up in the Church by her parents and received her Christian education in the Methodist faith.

I wonder, how many 'Christian' women out there have thought that, just maybe, it is a great insult to God, NOT to develop their own gifts in service to others? Particulary to the children: in education, in medical fields, child psychology and child psychiatry, recreational, the arts, and, yes, in the Church. Especially, in the Church, which nurtures young souls.

The fundamentalists seek to sacrifice to the God again: this time they will lay on the altar God's gifts to women: unused, to be returned and for what? So that men can look and act superior? That is very sad. Does God really want that sacrifice? ??????

It is dismaying that so many people want to cast judgment on whether a mother should hold outside employment. This is a decision best left to a husband and wife, those who know better than anyone the factors involved. Good parents will consider all relevant factors: Economic circumstances, number of hours worked, type of job, and the quality of care that will be afforded the children. Having been a stay-at-home mom, a part-time working mom and a full-time working mom I have a perspective on each. The decision for me to work was a joint decision made by my husband and me; we did not feel the need to consult Dorothy Patterson.

In whatever circumstances I was in, I always tried to be compassionate toward mothers who were making other choices. For example, as a stay-at-home mom, I provided child care for mothers who worked. They were working out of economic necessity and I tried to help ease their mind by knowing that their children were being cared for by someone who loved them and would treat them as she would her own children.

Now that my children are in college and my financial circumstances are much better, I make sure I support the children’s ministry in my church. I try to give generously to things such as children’s camp scholarships, knowing that young families may struggle to provide these blessings for their children. I also teach pre-school and volunteer in the nursery so that young mothers can sit for an hour with adults.

How ironic that my 2009 Vision Forum Family Catalog arrived in the mail this afternoon, just in time to order for Christmas! (For those of you who don't have a clue what I'm talking about, please bear with me as I direct my comments to my wonderful homeschooling friend Corrie).

As I mentioned to you a few weeks ago, I used to homeschool but stopped in the spring of 1999. After all these years, I'm still on the VF mailing list! I have never ordered anything from Vision Forum, and I never will. The catalog always winds up in the recycling bin.

I flipped through the VF catalog looking for the book you mentioned -- Housewives Desperate for God -- and there it is on page 26! Here is one of the endorsements printed on that page:

"Passionate Housewives Desperate for God provides the bookends for the life of . . . the Proverbs 31 'woman of strength.'"

Yes, Miss Dorothy is one of the key endorsers of this book published by Vision Forum. I'm curious -- was this book offered at the True Woman '08 Conference you recently attended?

Over the last two months I have done extensive research on Vision Forum, Doug Phillips, Voddie Baucham, the Botkin sisters, and Paige and Dorothy Patterson, among other things. I have come to the conclusion that there are strong ties between these individuals. Through this research, I believe God has given me a glimpse into the direction the SBC is headed if we don't sound the alarm! We aren't going back to the 1950's -- we're headed back to the 1800's!!!

I want to encourage others to do their own research. For example, I have read So Much More by the Botkin sisters (also published by VF and offered in this catalog), and what they are touting in their book is frightening! Daughters are to be their father's "helpmeet" until they get married. (I thought that was the role of the wife). Girls are to be homeschooled and not to attend college because they will be defiled by being in a corrupt environment. And when these daughters are "betrothed" and get married, they are to have a quiverful of children at which time these housewives will truly become DESPERATE!

Now I know why God prompted me to do that research. It all makes sense to me now.

You wrote about the Botkin sisters views: "Girls are to be homeschooled and not to attend college because they will be defiled by being in a corrupt environment. And when these daughters are "betrothed" and get married, they are to have a quiverful of children at which time these housewives will truly become DESPERATE!"

Wanda, what was the name of that seriously mentally-ill woman who drowned her five children? At one time, she was an educated normal woman. She and husband got involved in a far-right fundamentalist religion with all the bells and whistles: home-school, stay-at-home, lots of children, submission, on and on.

After the tragedy, the woman and her husband were shown on TV. She was totaled. He, by contrast, appeared calm, serene, and detached. (My opinion.)

I remember how, even at work, some women wanted her to be charged and imprisoned or worse: they were furious that she 'couldn't handle it' and broke down big-time, and they wanted her punished.

A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life. She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands. She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her familyand portions for her servant girls. She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable,and her lamp does not go out at night. In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers. She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy. When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet. She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple. Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her householdand does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all." Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

I've never seen how this fits with a modern-day America stay at home mom model. (Nothing against those; my dear wife is one.) Some key words and phrases indicate a pretty significant amount of time outside the home engaging in business: "brings food from afar", "provides", "buys it" (a field), "her earnings", "her trading is profitable", "sells them" (garments), "supplies merchants", etc.

Sounds like a busy lady! I wouldn't be surprised if some female CEOs (or state governors) get to spend more time at home than this lady did!

I had the best of both worlds: as a teacher with six years of university training, I worked full-time, ten months a year during the hours that my own children were in school.

Then, I had summers at home with my children. And with ALL the neighbors' children: friends of my son, Joel. My pool was always full; my refrigerator was mostly empty (hungry little kids).Pizza boxes were always stacked to the ceiling; three-liter bottles of soda everywhere; hot-dogs on the grill, and tons of kids running to me for band-aids, ice-cream cones, and a clean towel for swimming. Exhausting!!!

Oh my goodness.

DURING THOSE DAYS, HOW WAS I TO KNOW THAT THESE WOULD BE THE HAPPIEST DAYS OF MY LIFE?

Thanks for reminding us of what Proverbs 31 actually says by including the text on Wade's blog. It's obvious that Linda and I interpret this passage of Scripture very differently because Linda said:

"As for Proverbs 31, it clearly reads not as a woman in the workforce but rather as a woman who's homemaking responsibilites include financial matters."

I agree with your comment about Proverbs 31:

"I've never seen how this fits with a modern-day America stay at home mom model. . . Some key words and phrases indicate a pretty significant amount of time outside the home engaging in business: "brings food from afar", "provides", "buys it" (a field), "her earnings", "her trading is profitable", "sells them" (garments), "supplies merchants", etc. Sounds like a busy lady! I wouldn't be surprised if some female CEOs (or state governors) get to spend more time at home than this lady did!"

Women through the ages have ALWAYS worked. When we were an agrarian society, women worked alongside their husbands. I believe the stay-at-home mom is a fairly new phenomenon.

"Once, she (Dorothy Patterson) said she would obey her husband even when he was wrong. Her reasoning was when HE stood before the Lord HE would have to answer for HIM being wrong and not her since she was ‘submissive’."

Mara Reid said:

"Rex, if that didn't work for Sapphira in Acts chapter 5, what makes Dorothy think it will work for her in the 21st century church?"

L's Gran,

Mara's response is the BEST I have read! The Bible clearly addresses the issue of a wife's obedience to her husband even when he's DEAD WRONG. May we all, including Mrs. Patterson, learn an extremely important lesson from Sapphira!

Where would Hannah fit into this sahm scenerio when she did not raise her son...past what age?

I believe we are to minister to our children and raise them in the fear of the Lord. But much of what we are seeing taught today about husbands and children, which is extra biblical, is idolatry. Every man and woman is a follower of Christ first and foremost.

I do find the whole culture argument a bit hypocritical. We do tend to idolize certain periods in history but we forget the realities, too. For example, in the Victorian world, if you were middle class and up, you sent your children AWAY to be educated. EVen Christians did and missionaries, too! The poor children worked and were not educated. If we stay with this view that we are interpreting scripture through the lens of culture and that is bad, then were those things ok...even slavery must be ok?

Most people do not know that Vision Forum and others believe that women should not vote. The husband votes for the family. So, was giving women the right to vote not biblical?

Where are all these feminists I keep hearing about? What exactly defines a feminist these days, anyway? I can't keep up. :o)

I'm so glad you are informed on the "voting" stance of Vision Forum. When I first discovered that women are not encouraged to vote by this crowd, I was shocked!

Since you mentioned "feminism", you must be aware that Doug Phillips and his ilk are extremely opposed to Sarah Palin. They call her a feminist every chance they get on Doug's Blog.

I have my own theory about their political leanings, and without going into detail, it has everything to do with the Constitution Party. The dominionists want to reign and rule someday. That's why they are promoting the quiverfull movement.

You wrote: "I have my own theory about their political leanings, and without going into detail, it has everything to do with the Constitution Party. The dominionists want to reign and rule someday. That's why they are promoting the quiverfull movement"

Hitler had a 'quiverfull' policy. He arranged camps for young women, where they would be impregnated and bring forth children for the Third Reich. His goal was to produce enough Germans to take control of the world.

The Dominists are interesting. They may have had a hand in what happened at the United States Air Force Academy where cadets were heavily proselytized by far-right 'Christian' groups. This became public when the father of one Jewish cadet reported the situation to the press. Apparently, when it was investigated, there had been a lot of impropriety on the part of far-right politicos posing as 'Christians'.

Do you see a comparison in the tactics of the 'hostile take-over' and the tactics of the Dominionists. It's there. Rather clearly the same type of tactics. Does not prove connection; but is an interesting comparison.

Some wonder if there is a connection of the Dominionists with 'Blackwater', the private army, established by a far-rightChristian. They now have jets that are 'stationed' at various points along the coasts of our nation. They do not answer to our president or our government.

When we have our first OPENLY 'Christian' far-right president, then we will see the Dominionists make their move on the national stage. I think they will start with the Supreme Court.Then, it will be VERY important to them that they destroy the Balance of Powers as we know it. Of course, the rights of women will be quickly marginalized. Preparations for the coming confrontation with democracy does include heavy concentration on training: 'following orders' of Authority as appointed by their 'god'. Sieg Heil.

Some people see the hand of the Dominionists in all the 'mis-haps' in our military's handling and transporting nuclear weaponry within our borders. Was someone testing to see what the response would be, when the story came out? Would people notice? Would people care? Who knows. Conjecture.

Is all of this simply conjecture on my part? No, a lot of people I know see signs that something is coming. You are right to be concerned.

L’s Gran,I like replying to you as you have an inquiring mind that reaches for truth.

Yes, Mrs. Patterson said she was always submissive to her husband even when he was wrong, and he would be the one accountable to God. The news that quoted her had a picture and guess what was on her head? You got it.

Mara Reid had a warning for Mrs. Patterson with the account of Sapphira in Acts 5.

CURIOUS,Hyacinth Bucket is a TV actor of an English lady on a comedy show “Keeping Up Appearances”. She has a hat for every occasion and is funny because she’s such a hypocrite.

Maybe a ‘hat’ carries the disease of that trait as Mrs. Patterson echoes her husband fighting women that teach men, but she has taught men in her SS class for many years.

Wanda,I started to post this and saw you had made a better comment than I about Mara Reid, but I’m still going to add my two cents.

"“So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentiles believers with a yoke that neither we are our ancestors were able to bear?” (Verse 10 NLT)"

The pharisees were wanting to enforce the law and circumcision on the new gentile converts.

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.

But after all had been heard James rules as follows with what we can all agree is minimal requirements for the new converts to maintain.

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

How do you view Eze 20:25?

Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, Eze 20:26 and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.

These learned pharisees had Ezekiel's writings didn't they? When they had been told that they were given rules and statutes that were not good and would not give life, why did they then insist on making the new converts comply?

Do you see any correlation between them and us today? Some say that all we have to do is believe and we are saved, with scripture to support it. Others say that we must obey the gospel and be holy. Insist that we follow every jot and tittle and argue fine theological points to find our way on the narrow path. Also with scripture to support it.

I guess I am just wondering out loud if anyone else finds the gospel any easier to obey than the jews found the law was in their day?

An interesting read is Matthew Henry's commentary on Acts 15. Grab a sandwich and cold drink and spend a little time here. A fascinating read that sounds real familiar and applicable to todays discussion.Matthew Henry

Maybe what we are missing is Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

"Some wonder if there is a connection of the Dominionists with 'Blackwater', the private army, established by a far-rightChristian."

Dear Anonymous,

Our comments may be off topic (but maybe not if the Pattersons are part of the dominionist movement).

Since you brought up Blackwater, I wonder whether you know the connection of Erik Prince (an ex-Navy Seal and head of Blackwater) to Amway. Erik's sister Betsy is married to Richard DeVos, Jr., son of Amway co-founder Rich DeVos. Rich DeVos, Jr. ran for governor of Michigan in the last election, but lost.

I have done a little research on Amway and dominionism, and I found some very interesting information. Dominionism is a scary concept to me. It does remind me of how Hitler came to power.

I hope Cindy K. is reading this post and if so, I have a question for her. Don't you think that Doug Phillips and the Hat Lady are in collusion? After all, Mrs. Patterson endorsed a Vision Forum book that I would rather not name which addresses this topic.

Hi Wanda,

Doug Phillips does boast a connection with Paige Patterson and there are a few photos of him on Doug's site at Vision Forum events. Many of the Family Integrated Churches affiliated with Phillips also wear head coverings, so I think that's all very interesting. I don't know how close of an association they have because people boast friendships that are often nothing more than acquaintances. I do know that the Phillips family (Howard and Doug, etc) were close to Jerry Falwell's family through working together in the formation of the Moral Majority. I think that Doug Phillips uses those associations to his advantage.

(The funny hat thing in Doug's camp is the hat he wears. It seems like if you want to be like him, you must get a beige hat with a black band. Many of his faithful follower servant-leader leaders wear a hat like he does. They should sell them in their catalog.)

Wanda wrote: The Dominists are interesting. They may have had a hand in what happened at the United States Air Force Academy where cadets were heavily proselytized by far-right 'Christian' groups. This became public when the father of one Jewish cadet reported the situation to the press. Apparently, when it was investigated, there had been a lot of impropriety on the part of far-right politicos posing as 'Christians'.

Does your research connecting DeVos to Dominionists only take the John Birch Society track? I was wondering if you know anything about Henry Reyenga of homediscipleship.com who uses the Amway approach to spreading cell groups and home discipleship (and was mentored by the elder DeVos). Cult exit counselors consider Amway's tactics to be quite heavy in the thought reform department...

Are these people (Dominionists and their minions) together with ALL who serve the undermining of our country as we know it: are they REALLY religious, or is religion simply a cynical cover-up for a power grap:

like those who claim certain stands on reproductive issues, in order to secure the votes of people who hold certain views sacred? Incredibly cynical.

These people count on Americans not waking up until it is too late. Americans need to be very vigilant and watchful of these thieves who come in the night. Theocon rule will not be Christian. Far from it.

"What I see when I go to sites like Vision Forum, is a commercial enterprise sucking in people with wish fulfillment - into a history that never existed. A religious Disneyland that suspends critical thinking skills, a la la land. Scratch the surface and the hate pours out." Quoted from BeneDiction blogspot.

I enjoyed reading your responses. The quote about the Air Force Academy is actually attributed to "Anonymous". He was asking me whether I knew anything about the situation there, and unfortunately, I only know what was reported in the news. It's certainly worth investigating.

I'm not aware of any connection between Rich DeVos and the John Birch Society, but Cindy, all of this subterfuge is completely new to me!

It's strange how God awaken His people. For me it all began just two months ago when I heard about an engagement at a large Southern Baptist church in my community. The bride-to-be is a college senior who got engaged in July. This church doesn't believe in long engagements, so the couple is getting married in early January in order to go on a missions trip to Africa in February with their church. Maybe she'll graduate someday, and maybe she won't. I guess it's no longer a priority.

I just couldn't understand how this bride-to-be could seemingly throw away her college education like that, so I began researching "young marriages". To my shock I came across inflammatory statements by Al Mohler on singleness. Then I discovered that Dr. Mohler came to the church I just mentioned two years ago, and he publicly proclaimed to the congregation that "singleness is an abomination". Maybe the couple that's getting married was in the audience that day.

I began searching a few blogs by college women who were discussing getting married young to see what was on their minds. I found several references to a book entitled So Much More by the Botkin sisters. I wondered, "Who are they?" I pulled up a book review on Amazon, and I became greatly disturbed. After all, I have a daughter in college. Then I decided to read the book for myself. I figured the local Christian bookstores would carry it. To my surprise, Family Christian Stores and LifeWay did not stock it, nor could they order it for me. That seemed odd. I was finally able to get it from another source (not VF!) I came to discover that Vision Forum is the book's publisher, so I began researching Doug Phillips.

I used to homeschool my two daughters, and I remember hearing Doug speak at our annual convention in 1998 (the same year he began VF). At the time he made a favorable impression on me. I ended my stint as a homeschooling mom one year later, and I'm counting my blessings that I was no longer in a position to be influenced by Doug Phillips through the homeschooling movement.

As I began to learn about a new concept to me "Patriarchy" I wondered whether Doug Phillips and Paige Patterson knew each other. By searching their names, a link came up that led me to Wade Burleson's blog. I think it was his post on patriarchy that mentioned the Phillips/Patterson connection. When I first pulled up the link, I had never heard of Wade, but now here I am . . .

I have now learned about Family Integrated Churches and how Doug Phillips, Scott Brown, and Voddie Baucham are heavily involved in the establishment of this new church concept. Now I know that Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is involved.

I also began discovering information about you and your presentation at that Baptist seminary in the Midwest (oops!) This has been a most fascinating journey, and I'm just getting started! Oh how I love the internet!!!

In case anyone is wondering who Doug Phillips is supporting in the upcoming Presidential election, just search "Doug's Blog", click on the link and scroll down to the post "What Is a Wasted Vote?" on Wednesday, October 15, 2008.

I'll go ahead and clue you in. A wasted vote is one that is cast for either McCain or Obama.

First my comment that you-all are probably tired of. The place of women may be secondary, tertiary, or even lower to men. But it can’t help but be primary to women, especially to those who feel called to serve God in a way that many want to deny them.

I guess Mrs. (Dr.) Patterson wears hats because of 1 Corinthians 11 where it says women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy (prophesy! Isn’t that the word often associated with preaching? Well Paul said it so it must be right for all time and not cultural, especially he also said those much more quoted statements that women should be silent and submissive that also were not cultural or addressed to a specific situation.) :-)

When people talk of cultural differences I think of a story I heard about a young German woman who came to attend SWBTS. I heard the story years ago, and it had happened some years before that. She was met at the airport by a faculty member and his wife and taken to a nice restaurant for dinner. With her meal she ordered beer (or maybe another kind of drink, but definitely alcohol). The seminary couple didn’t say anything until they were later in their home after dinner, at which time they told her how shocked they were. She accepted their criticism and said while such was quite acceptable among Christians in Germany she would not drink while here out of deference to local custom. She then said she had been equally shocked that the wife was wearing makeup which was not done among her fellow Christians in Germany.

Mrs. Patterson said she would obey her husband even if he was wrong. If she was truly submissive, would she even know he was wrong? Wouldn’t that be having a thought contrary to his?

Who says a stay at home mom does not work? It just is a kind of work that is unpaid and unrecognized. (Most mothers who work outside the home have two full-time jobs, unless the husband also shares home responsibilities.) Some years ago - I haven’t heard of this idea in years, so I guess its proponents gave up - it was proposed (as I remember by those much maligned feminists) that Social Security earnings by married people be credited in equal shares to both partners during the marriage, rather than the practice from the first of it being credited only to the worker. Thus a wife stayed out of the workforce to take care of the family at home while her husband worked would have a share in his earnings during their marriage in the case of his death or a divorce. Again, as I remember, those who opposed it were the same ones who opposed so many other rights for women, including the right to be paid equally for paid jobs outside the home, or even to have good jobs outside the home and adequate child care while at those jobs. But if women are such inferior creatures, who cares if they are provided for.

"Tuesday, April 17, 2007Podcast: Paul Pressler, Gary North and Dominionism Dr. Bruce Prescott's April 15, 2007 "Religious Talk" radio program on "Paul Pressler, Gary North and Dominionism" (28MB mp3). This program gives audio quotations of Paul Pressler revealing the strategy used to takeover the Southern Baptist Convention to Gary North, a leading Christian Reconstructionist. North holds this strategy up as a model for how "conservatives" can takeover other organizations.

The program also discusses the theocratic views of Christian Reconstructionists. The program includes audio quotations of Bill Moyers questioning R. J. Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism, about the political views of his son-in-law, Gary North, and about the Reconstructionist belief that civil government should enforce the death penalty on adulterers, homosexuals, and delinquent children. Posted by Dr. Bruce Prescott "

I am aware of the information you have provided, and it's frightening! I hope others will become informed about Christian Reconstructionists.

Since you mentioned Paul Pressler, do you know whether Paige Patterson is involved? The braggadocio of Patterson and Pressler recounting how they met at Cafe du Monde to plan the SBC takeover sounds eerily similar to what you are sharing here.

If what has happened in the SBC over the last three decades is any indication of what may be on the horizon with the Christian Reconstructionists, we need to be alarmed! It's time to get proactive.

The Bible Gateway 54 "Gospel Communications International (GCI) is host and founder of the Gospel Communications Network (Gospelcom.net), a strategic alliance of online ministries." "...Dedicated by the Gospel Films board to the memory of Ed Prince [CNP], our late Board member, Gospelcom is an unprecedented alliance of over 200 national and international Christian ministry organizations Network...." 55

"...The idea was presented to Gospel Films President Billy Zeoli [CNP], who quickly caught the vision and had the team present the plan to the Gospel Films Board of Directors. The Board, under the chairmanship of Richard M. DeVos [CNP], also saw the great potential for ministry in this new medium. Leading the charge for GCI Board support of the plan was then board secretary Edgar D. Prince. Footnotes 54-55

Elsa Prince - CNP Board of Governors 1996, 1998; Family Research Council Board of Directors; Focus on the Family Board of Directors; member of Calvin College's board of trustees; Two major gifts totaling $20 million financed the construction of a new center for communication arts and sciences and a new conference center at Calvin College...The money, split between the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation and the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, represents the two largest donations in the history of the Christian liberal-arts college. 56 ;

In 1997, helped to provide funding for a new headquarters for the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.; "RE. Family Research Council, "... By 2000, that number had quintupled to over 100 employees and the group had moved into a brand-new multi-story office on the edge of Washington’s Chinatown. (The building was erected with money from Dick DeVos [son of Amway co-founder Richard DeVos], the conservative Michi­gan-based Amway millionaire, his wife Betsy DeVos, former chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party, and Betsy’s mother, Elsa Prince.) 57 ; supporter of School vouchers, giving $200,000 to "Kid's First, Yes"...Between 1994 and 1997, according to federal tax records, DeVos, Prince and Amway foundations contributed more than $1.5 million to Teach Michigan, the Michigan Family Forum and the Mackinac Center, all of which are declared members of the Kids First! Yes! Coalition. 58 Footnotes 56-58

Coy C. Privette- CNP 1996, 1998; Trustee, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Inc. 59 " The Board of Trustees consists of thirty members who are elected by the Southern Baptist Convention and are charged with the control and governance of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Inc.; steering committee 60, Dan Heimbach for Congress, who, January 1989 to February 1991 served President George Bush at the White House as Associate Director for Domestic Policy and Deputy Executive Secretary of the Domestic Policy Council.; Footnotes 59-60

"The CNP members have made claims to desire to be an alternate to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), yet, we find that there are members of the CFR within the membership of the CNP. The purpose, according to some, for the CNP is to educate particular individuals, but also to bring together activists with those with the finances in order to promote their chosen agendas."

The authors of Passionate Housewives Desperate for God also were interviewed by Nancy Leigh DeMoss on her show. If that is the "biblical womanhood" that we are to follow, then we should all be very concerned. That is why I am concerned about the True Woman Manifesto.

Chancey is easier to pin down in what she believes but McDonald speaks out of both sides of her mouth and one can never really pin her down on anything.

One more thing, McDonald highly reveres and promotes and applauds the Botkin girls' book, So Much More. That is a book where they teach that the daughter is a "helpmeet" to her father and that Amy Carmichael and Gladys Aylward were out of the will of God because they didn't stay in their father's house to serve his vision and ambitions but chose to leave their father's homes thus never fulfilling their sole purpose as a woman- to get married and serve a husband (or stay single and serve a father) and bear many children.

The Botkins claim that these godly female missionaries were unwittingly playing the part of the loud and boisterous and rebellious woman from Proverbs whose "feet never stay at home".

If Mrs. Patterson promotes Passionate Housewives that openly mocks women who don't do womanhood according to their own playbook and tells women that they are just too busy to have a daily quiet time (something that the True Woman conference clearly said was a lie). I am not talking about a legalistic quiet time, I am talking about daily getting into our Bibles and abiding in His word per Christ's command to us in John 15. If we do not abide, we do not produce fruit. The only way to abide in Christ (and in His love) is to be in His word, regularly, and to put Him first above all things, including our own families. These are two of the marks of a true disciple.

Much of what is taught as "biblical womanhood" falls, imho, under the title of the "cult of family". I see no such sentiment in Jesus' words to His disciples.

" have an offer for you if you will accept. I have been wanting to hear from someone who attended The True Woman Conference. Your assessment of the Conference sounds like what mine would be. I love and admire those who put it on, and would never disagree with their view of Scripture, Christ and God's grace. However, I keep thinking there is something unspoken that I'm missing. A paradigm that extends beyond what is publicly stated."

Hi Wade,

Wow! I will certainly pray about how I can go about this and what I can say about this.

I will try to get something to you by tomorrow morning. I have a very busy day ahead of me and if today is anything like the past few days, things are not going as smoothly as I would have liked. :-)

Oh, and by the way, Anonymous, let me give you a heads up. You posted information about Judge Paul Pressler's son, not Judge Pressler. Don't know where you got the info, but you probably ought to give them a heads up, too.

"Paul Pressler’s autobiography, A Hill On Which To Die, has been sent to some 40,000 Southern Baptist pastors and leaders around the country. Someone is spending some big bucks to help Pressler gain further notoriety. I think Pressler is vainly attempting to establish his own his legacy. He sees himself as a savior of a denomination.

Throughout the book, braggadocios and self-glorifying language abounds as he attempts to build himself into a hero. No stone is left unturned to delineate his close relationship with powerful people in high places both in denominational and secular political life. There are few books in print where the author makes so many self-honoring and personal-glorifying statements about himself.

Much of the book is a feeble attempt to portray Southern Baptists as having been on a slippery slope toward utter liberalism prior to his taking the helm. Pressler is the ultimate spin-meister of Southern Baptist Fundamentalism. His understanding of traditional Southern Baptists is hopelessly skewed. His idea that the Southern Baptist convention was on the slippery slope toward liberalism is a myth. However, if a lie is told as truth long enough, multitudes of people will believe the myth to be true.

Pressler thinks that anyone who disagrees with himself, W. A. Criswell, Paige Patterson, along with a few others, is liberal beyond hope. Consequently, the thrust of the book is to vilify anyone and everyone who disagreed with the Fundamentalist takeover movement. Actually, those who disagree with Fundamentalist Southern Baptists are perceived to the very enemies of God himself, not to mention enemies of the denomination.

The method Pressler used to vilify the so-called liberals among Southern Baptists was to cast doubt in the reader's mind by demeaning and destroying the credibility of people who held views different from his own. Pressler is particularly fond of vilifying a small number seminary professors and presidents. The number of those whom he considered to be totally liberal was conspicuously small in the scheme of things. Nonetheless, this made no difference to him.

Anyone who knows Baptist theology will quickly recognize that the Judge pontificates in realms where he has neither training nor understanding. He talks a great game to those who have little theological understanding. His ability as a fundamentalist spin-meister is incredible. His ability to pull the wool over gullible Southern Baptists is astonishing. His ability to gather and motivate gullible people into action is beyond amazing. Once he gathered his posse and joined with his lieutenants, it was down hill from there. Pressler never considered dying on a hill. His primary goal was to take the hill for his own and push everyone else off.

One statement in the book stands out as particularly arrogant and offensive to me. In Chapter 17 "In the Thick of Battle" Pressler wrote, "These events were in God hands, and we realized that He would fight the battle His way and not ours." (p. 114)

What message is the Judge attempting to convey here? For starters, the message is that God’s agenda is fighting denominational battles. Another part of the message is that God uses his power to subdivide Baptists into pods of good and evil. Of course, fighting battles requires that someone have enemies. Since God fights battles to subdivide Baptists, the Fundamentalists think they are the good pod. Moderate Baptists, by default, are the evil pod. Moderate Baptists become the enemies of God and of all Fundamentalist Baptists. They are seen as being in league with Satan himself. Hence, they must to be vilified, demonized, and excluded from fellowship and cooperation in Baptist life. Fundamentalists, by their very nature, need enemies to function in life.

When the Judge credits God as being the instigator of the battle to takeover the SBC, he claims God perpetrated the divisions within our ranks. How arrogant and vain can one man be? How arrogant and vain can the Fundamentalist Southern Baptists be?

Apparently, Pressler does not understand the principles governing relationships among Christians. Perhaps he ripped out the page in his Bible which contains the following admonition: “As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit just as you were called to one hope when you were called.” Eph. 4:1-4 [NKJV]

Bible believing Baptists recognize that God’s agenda is not to subdivide Baptists into good and bad groups. God is a God of love, not hate. He doesn’t bless one group of Baptists while simultaneously hating another group. The notion that any group of Baptists possesses an exclusive corner on God’s truth and blessings is absurd. It is preposterous to credit God with a deceitful, mean-spirited activity which, in reality, was born in the heart of Pressler himself. Yet Paul Pressler does just this in his book. He presents himself as one smelling like rose. In my opinion, with apologies to W. A. Criswell, the smell is more like that of a skunk." quoted from D. Frick

Ezekiel,Thanks for the reply.You covered very well the words of Peter, but I have a problem with “But after all had been heard, James’ rules as follows with what we can ALL agree in minimal requirements for the new converts to maintain.”

The important question is: MAINTAIN WHAT?

The DIFFERENCE in the two sides of Acts 15 would make the DIFFERENCE in the SBC today, look like a molehill.

So how did such opposite opinions agree?

They agreed because both sides thought that James agreed with them. One side looked at the rules as a RESULT of being saved, and the other side looked at the rules as REQUIREMENTS to be saved. (Paul spent the rest of his life fighting against these rules.)

Ezekiel, you dodged the question was the Holy Spirit with Peter’s conclusion, or with the rules conclusion as they were opposite views.

You said grab a sandwich and visit Henry’s commentary. You should have said grab breakfast, lunch, and supper.

Henry also dodged the same question. He said the men of Acts 15: 1, were not from the Apostles, and he is right as Galatians 2:12 identifies them as the friends of James. “But afterwards when some Jewish friends of James came, he wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore because he was afraid of what these Jewish legalists, who insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation, would say:” (Living Bible)

These men were probably the same sect of Pharisees in Acts 15:5.

I’m getting too carried away on my favorite subject in studying the mistakes in the Bible that we may not repeat them.

You asked what I thought of Ezekiel 20:25. “I let them adopt customs and laws which were worthless…”(Living Bible)

I believe that Scripture could be applied today as people’s greed has passed laws and practices that are worthless and will cause such a disaster that once again Christians will look to God for help, but it will be too late. A government that can give you money has the power to take it from you. I believe government will get so big it will be toppled by a dictator just as history has recorded in the past.

Speaking as one who supports the recognition of the distinctions in the roles of men and women (not that ALL women should be submissive to ALL men at ALL times or that a woman cannot teach Hebrew in a seminary) I sure would be happy to pay some surgeon to remove the Patterson's voice boxes. They are an embarrassment. Or maybe get them busy doing TV commericals or something. I can see it now:

Him-You got chocolate on my fried chicken.Her-You got fried chicken on my chocolate.Announcer: Two great tastes that taste great together......

I think I heard Nancy Leigh DeMoss interviewing Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald on the Revive Our Hearts broadcast back during the summer. I plan to listen to it again via the internet.

I didn't know who they were or anything about the Housewives book they co-authored at the time, but I do recall that the discussion made me feel very uncomfortable.

Thanks for the information on Stacy McDonald's promotion of the Botkin sisters. It's absolutely absurd that two teenagers are counseling their peers on important matters regarding education, marriage, and family. The Bible instructs older women to teach younger women. I have read So Much More for myself, and I'm fearful for young girls who are being influenced by it. The Botkin sisters conclude their book by promoting the "Quiverfull" movement.

FYI -- DeMoss also discussed the Quiverfull movement on her broadcast in July 2008. You can go to the Revive Our Hearts website to hear it.

Here's what I now believe. This is a systematic exercise in MIND CONTROL. I hope Christian women will wake up before they are totally brainwashed! They might end up like Andrea Yates, as someone mentioned in a comment posted yesterday.

I know you have many children whom you homeschool, and I think that's wonderful! I just feel sorry for women who are being coerced into having large families for what I believe is ultimately a political agenda.

I hope you will take Wade up on his offer and write about the True Woman '08 Conference you attended. I would be very interesting in reading your take on what was being promoted at that event.

When I heard the title of Pressler's book (which I haven't wanted to read, I don't want to make myself sick) I thought a more accurate title would be A Hill from which to Kill. At least that seems to be the effect.

I know I am juumping in late to the discusssion but wanted to weigh in regarding the SBC, homeschooling, and the Desperate Housewives book.

As this article points out, many if not moist of us could find agreement with the Biblical premises Mrs. Patterson presents. But the truth is that to these people, if you do not embraceher "bookends" you are labeled a white washed feminist or worse. The Desperate Housewives book spend considerable time bashing those who do not live out their committment to Scripture in the neo-complimentarian manner and the pejoratives are rampant.

If anyone wants an indepth overview of the Vision Forum teachings, I would encourage you to go to www.truewomanhood.wordpress.com and look through the threads on the Visionary Daughters. The contributors has sought to evaluate the Vision Forum teachings, which are pervasive all through homeschooling circles,from a sound Biblical perspective.

I also want to note that our blog has had this name for about 3 or so years now and I find it curious that this new conference is called "true woman" AFTER we mention some of their speakers and mentors by name on our blog.

You are so right! There is a dictatorial spirit in the SBC. The leaders you mention call the tune and everyone marches in step behind them. It must look like a farce to Christians in other denominations who are watching from afar.

Corrie,

I have been doing some research on the Revive Our Hearts website, and I can't find the broadcast with the authors of Housewives Desperate for God. Are you sure they were interviewed by Nancy Leigh DeMoss?

In hindsight, I'm almost certain the interview I heard which made me feel uncomfortable was Nancy interviewing Mary Kassian. I will go back and listen to the broadcast to be sure.

I apologize for all the typos and not my regular name showing up. I am still visiting my new grandbaby out of town and just cannot get used to this computer!

I also wanted to invite Wanda to join the truewomanhood conversation and to add her insights and also to tell her that I did a series of podcasts on the topic of patriocentricity a year ago that she might find interesting.

I am very grateful to God for what Judge Pressler and others who helped him did to see that the SBC's institutions did not continue on the "Down Grade", as Charles Spurgeon would have said.

Southern Baptists knew there were problems and they had concerns about their institutions, but it took someone with Judge Pressler's background and exposure to liberal theology (at Philips Exeter and Princeton) and later at some SBC churches, history in SBC churches, and legal understanding to help common Southern Baptists see how they could make a difference. Southern Baptists had elected conservative Presidents of the SBC before (including Criswell), but they did not understand how their appointment powers could affect the institutions. Criswell even said in later years, to his regret, that he would let Porter Routh (then SBC Secretary/Treasurer in Nashville) select his appointments and then sign off on them.

Judge Pressler explanined this to thousands of Southern Baptists on his own time and with his own resources.

Judge Pressler has never sought or obtained a salary or salaried position from any SBC insitutuion. He continued on the bench, retired, and then returned to practicing law. He is now fully retired.

Judge Pressler faced great opposition from almost every State Baptist denomination headquarters and from the SBC headquarters in Nashville. All of the SBC insitutions and their Presidents (Baptist Press, the seminaries, the Sunday School Board, the Christian Life Commission, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Foreign Mission Board, the Home Mission Board etc.), the state denomiantional personnel, the state colleges, the state Baptist papers (saving Indiana) opposed his efforts.

Considering that, it truly is amazing that the common SBC people were able to see the issues clearly and came to the SBC meetings to vote for a change. Judge Pressler's efforts made that possible.

I know there are people like D. Frick (I don't know who that is), whom Anonymous quoted, who don't like Judge Pressler. There have been and always will be.

On the other hand, there are thousands who admire him, both common, little known people in the SBC as well as leaders and familiar figures. And the history of that movement in the SBC - from 1979-1992 or so, is just that - history.

I really is amazing that a denomination like the SBC actually reversed a slide into liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. Common, ordinary Baptists did this by attending the SBC meetings and voting their consciences. But Judge Pressler played a huge role in that.

There are very few layman who have excelled in their respective fields (for Judge Pressler, it was law), who have the insight and the commitment to affect these kind of changes.

Also, despite his own personal efforts, I believe that Judge Pressler is correct to give the credit to God for these things.

You will never know the fear of which I speak of because it appears you hold to the party line of those in power. You seem to want to deny what PP and PP did in "taking over" the SBC. Does it ever bother you even a little bit about their tactics?

I know of much better days that existed in the SBC than the current ones.

Mrs. PP and the hat thing cracks me up. I can honestly say that my husband got me started, really as soon as we got married, with wearing hats almost every time I go out. We live in So. Arizona, skin cancer runs in his family, and I too am very fair skinned. Symbol of authority is the last thing he had on his mind when he gave me a hat on our honeymoon. (And yes, I am often reminded of his love and concern when I put a hat on before going outside!)

For example, one of my friends is in a leadership position of an agency that is funded by the CBF and others sympathetic to their cause. He is a nice guy and we like each other very much. But theologically, we are different. And more importantly, he would allow for professors in seminaries and other denominational employees to not agree with the 1963 or 2000 BFM, or told hold positions denying things like the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Resurrection etc. So that position magnifies the differences that we already have.

He believes that the Priesthood of the Believer means that each Baptist can decide for himself or herself what they will believe, and that their beliefs should not be a condition of employment in a denomination. I, of course, do not agree with that, and think that all professors or other employees in the denomination should agree with the denomination's statement of faith.

We really do get along well. We just have a difference of opinion over this issue, but it is such a central issue that it would be impossible for us to run a seminary or a denomination together.

Other than my church, many of my friends are not Baptist. Some are conservative theologically, some are liberal theologically.

I also want you to know that I understand that the CR caused a lot of hurt and disappointment, and that it brought up painful issues and episodes for many people. So, even though I don't understand your precise situation, I hear what you are saying. And I don't think that is a small thing.

I put a priority on the issues that the CR raised. I really believed that signs of theological disagreement were papered over and ignored as far back as the 30s. But the problem was those differences cannot be ignored when churches are doing cooperative works like seminaries etc.

I think that if we met one day and talked together we would have a good time and would understand one another.

On tactics, I personally do not know of any tactic that Judge Pressler or the other public leaders urged that was wrong. I know that there is a lot of "lore" out there about some things. And even on some of those, I have no problems. But, I would not want to go on record affirming everything that every conservative did from 1979 to 1992. There were a lot of people, obviously, who supported the CR, and I would not want to sign on to every possible thing that was done.

Still, at none of the meetings, the conventions etc. that I attended or publications that I read did I ever see a course urged or a "tactic" used that I thought was wrong.

I would be glad to dialogue further with you about what you saw, however.

Louis: "but it took someone with Judge Pressler's background and exposure to liberal theology (at Philips Exeter and Princeton) and later at some SBC churches, history in SBC churches, and legal understanding to help common Southern Baptists see how they could make a difference"

Louis said "There were a lot of people, obviously, who supported the CR, and I would not want to sign on to every possible thing that was done."

NO Christian would want to sign either.

Of concern is the pressure put on minions to comform and to persecute. Did this happen? If PP and PP were pre-eminant in their influence: what WAS that influence? Did people feel pressured? What happened here? WHAT HAPPENED?

I find the stance against birth control Mrs. PP & some of the others hold frightening. Notice how Mrs. PP herself only has 2 children - fertility problems if I remember right. Notice how the "quiverful" people who have bundles of children are: 1) Economically situated with the amount the dad brings in so the mom can stay home without the family starving; and 2) Mom's physical and mental health is such that she could bear that many children. Before birth control was legalized in this country, a lot of children did not have the necessities of life adequately taken care of because the families were too large for the parents to adequately support. Also, before birth control was legalized in this country, a lot of women died in childbirth. A lot more women were in poor health physically due to having more children than their bodies could really stand. Sure, advances in medical care is a large part why maternal mortality / morbidity has gone way down since the early 1900's, but also the fact that a woman has reliable ways to keep from having more children if her health can not take it is also a large part for the decrease in maternal mortality / morbidity. For too many women, following the "no birth control" thought line would be at the cost of their health - or their life.

About the Passionate Housewives book and Nancy Leigh DeMoss. I never tracked down the show and listened to it, by then pretty discouraged about it all. Her message seems very different to me than Chancey and McDonald (the book authors of Vision Forum), but the same can be said of that whole True Womanhood conference. I would never guess that she was complementarian to the nth degree like these others based on her teachings and messages that I've heard.

DeMoss never contacted me in response to my letter, but I did get a letter from Family Life who did interviews the same day. They are online.

If you go to my site, you can see pictures of Nancy Leigh with Jennie and Stacy, and if you link to "Your Sacred Calling" from my post, you can see more photos. On my own site, on this webpage, you can also read FamilyLife's response to me (since I sent them the same letter). They basically say "our name is not our honor." They take no responsibility for screening the guests, so I guess a Moonie or a Mormon could be featured on their radio broadcast, because they are all pro-family.

If you have been reading here long, you would know that Louis is very impressed with worldly success, titles, the ivy league, etc, even though scripture says this:

1 Corin 1

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c] 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

It would never occur to Louis that an uneducated janitor may be more spiritually mature and holy than a man with a PhD in Theology.

But, we love him anyway. He was making the point that Pressler, by way of his ivy league education, saw liberalism and it's tactics at work. Therefore he learned to use liberal's tactics to win one for the uber conservatives who think women play 'roles' in life and serve men instead of Christ.

Wade has a new post up. Let's all read it and comment. But please, no one say it's not fair because clearly the bird forming the "mouth" of the smiley face is a female bird and the two ABOVE the female are male birds clearly ruling over her.

And then don't write a blog "post" diatribe in the comment stream of Wade's blog asking us to consider how this picture represents the current SBC and it's view of women.

I had already seen the beautiful picture of God's providence, and I just finished reading the following comment by Homeschool Mom:

"Wade has a new post up. Let's all read it and comment. But please, no one say it's not fair because clearly the bird forming the "mouth" of the smiley face is a female bird and the two ABOVE the female are male birds clearly ruling over her."

Honestly, I NEVER would have thought of that, and now I can't look at the picture WITHOUT thinking it.

Thanks to Homeschool Mom, this picture has forever been tarnished in my mind. I am VERY UPSET!!! Now we know how these women living under patriarchy think. :-(

Good question. It is pretty easy to fall into the trap here of thinking that the answer is our salvation but then that would fly all over the "saved by faith and faith alone" thing. I guess the way I read it it means that there were things that a new convert was expected to abstain from. Much like today, we would expect a new convert to stop drinking blood..or hanging out on the local street corner, or worshipping the gold calf on top of their tv. The same arguments would apply today, "you have to stop doing that to be saved or if you are saved you won't do that".

The DIFFERENCE in the two sides of Acts 15 would make the DIFFERENCE in the SBC today, look like a molehill.

Agreed. A huge difference but resolved without bloodshed...Why won't the same thing work for us today? That is what so intrigued me about the Matthew Henry commentary.

So how did such opposite opinions agree?

I don't think they agreed. The differing views were presented and James ruled. Apparently all parties were satisfied to abide by the ruling.

They agreed because both sides thought that James agreed with them. One side looked at the rules as a RESULT of being saved, and the other side looked at the rules as REQUIREMENTS to be saved. (Paul spent the rest of his life fighting against these rules.)

I don't read it in a way that has both sides thinking that James agreed with them. After all, the Jewish converts were just told that the basic tenents of their faith, the things they had been taught from birth that were requirements for their practice of religion (circumcision and Moses Law) were not required for gentile converts. Just because they didn't throw a fit in the business meeting and storm out of the church (the baptist way) doesn't mean they agreed with the decision, just that they accepted James authority and leadership in the matter. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't going to turn out any other way as long as the Holy Spirit was involved. He had already made it pretty clear to Paul and Peter (Acts 10:15,28)that people were being saved, indwelled with the Holy Spirit, without any observance of any jewish law. I don't know about you but if I had been in Peters shoes in Acts 10, I would have been arguing pretty adamantly that circumcision and the law were not required for salvation. I don't doubt the Holy Spirit's ability to make it just as clear to James or for that matter, the jews causing the problem.

Having said all that, when we look at modern day church leaders trying to establish a doctrine or ESS then can't we address it the same way they did? Even further than that, what would happen if such a counsel were called and these leaders had a Peter, or a Paul stand up in front of them and ask them why they are refusing to accept the ruling of a group of elders from the early church. This ground has been plowed already and the determination has already been made. I don't see any subordination in the Nicene creed anywhere. What we are hearing today from some of the leadership doesn't match up with it and in fact closely resemble the heresy it countered.

Thanks for the information in your previous comment. I have checked out your website, and I am grateful for the work you are doing there. My best friend and I want to create our own blog. We already have the domain name. It's Wartburg Faith Watch. Pray for us. We plan to tackle some difficult "faith" issues.

I think I have noticed a change in Nancy Leigh DeMoss's programming. I rarely listen to her anymore because I believe she has come under the influence of patriarchy. As far as I can determine from her website, she has never aired the program with the authors of Housewives Desperate for God. I think it's a disgrace that Chancey and McDonald chose that title because it reminds me of something that is having a corrupting influence on the viewing audience. There's nothing cute about this book title in my mind.

FYI -- James McDonald spoke at SEBTS last Spring. I used to listen to him on the radio, but I am being more selective now because I'm so bored with the personal agendas of these people who support patriarchy. Since James McDonald's wife co-wrote that desperate book, I would assume that he is of that ilk.

As one of your Southern Baptist Mission Service Corps home missionaries (fulltime career) I want to say a BIG THANK YOU to you for your commendation of me, a single, never married woman, who is fulfilling God's design for my life.

When I received my recent copy of the Southwestern News Magazine (I am a graduate of SWBTS) my heart ached. Based on the many articles in this particular edition, there appears to be no room anymore, from a seminary which trained me to fulfill my call, for me to do the will of God in my life. Thankfully it is just a magazine, SWBTS is just a school, Dorothy P. is just a woman and none of the above are GOD! The Lord called me into ministry 29 years ago, and since 1986 I have been serving in fulltime ministry as a vocation. Back then my pastor told me it would be a rough road because I was a female (he was a very conservative pastor), yet he assured me he would do everything he could to help me, and he did! Honestly I think it is much harder today for women than it was back then. When young ladies come to me for counsel when they are feeling led into ministry I hurt because I have to tell them their denomination is moving more and more to the place of being less and less accepting of God's call upon them. Oh how I wish there were more Wade Burlesons. Thank you for making this one of your battles for the kingdom.

In my role as a home missionary I often teach men and often talk to them one-on-one about their need of salvation through Christ Jesus (see my blog to learn more - calledtocare.blogspot.com) I make no apologies and until the Lord tells me "you shouldn't be doing this," I will continue.

I don't have the writing gift of Dorothy P., but I do have the calling of Jesus Christ, so I hope what I have said will help some who may not believe I should be doing what God called me to do, rethink their position. Someday, those in Christ Jesus will stand before Him and He will be the judge. I have a feeling He will be greatly disappointed with Southern Baptists for spending more time on mandating what a woman's role is in our denomination, than getting out there and reaching lost souls for Him.

I remember a time when I was forced to 'homeschool' one of my children. He is now thirty-eight years old. In the days when he was little, there were no classes for him, because he had special needs. I tried very hard to find help and I did: from other mothers of special-needs children. Sometimes, because my husband was military at that time, we would end up on a waiting list for a private school. But we would be transferred before our turn came. Once we were scheduled to go to Greece for a duty station and there was a Greek school called 'St. Catherine's School' that would have taken my son right away. But my husband was re-assigned to state side. There is nothing I would not have done for my child. I just didn't have the knowledge in those days that I have now. Finally, special-needs children were given the rights to an education and my son was served. Why do I write about this? Because, maybe, 'Home School Mom' does not want to be put in some category just because she home schools. She, at least, has the choice to be a home-school mom. I did not. I'm glad she has this choice. I'm glad that she is doing what she feels is best for her children. As a former teacher by profession myself, I admire her VERY much. I don't think she's bitter, I just think she feels that we don't support her. I support her with the hope that it truly IS HER CHOICE. L's Gran

Dear Chaplain Cathy, Thank you for sharing your story. You write very well indeed. Your story has a pathos that resonates with the stories of the 'fired' missionaries and with Dr. Klouda. I truly hope that the Good Lord will protect you and the young women of the Church from the Evil One's influence over some in the 'leadership'. You must feel all this trouble as a form of 'persecution'. It is persecution. You can, with honor, pray to God as Christ did from the cross: 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. " L's G.

I have been touched by your comments, and I believe you are using your gifts for the glory of God. I'm confident that one day you will hear Almighty God say: "Well done good and faithful servant."

I'll be completely honest. I'm not sure the Pattersons and their cohorts will hear God speak these words to them. They have prevented so many women from using the spiritual gifts He alone has given them, and I truly believe the words He will utter to them are these: "Shame on you! You kept my important work from going forward on earth and many souls that could have been saved were lost."

God bless you in your important work Cathy, and I'll be praying for you.

Ezekiel,It’s a joy to converse with someone that I believe has an open mind. I was wrong in saying, “Both sides thought that James agreed with them.”

Before I explain why I was wrong, I want to agree in your saying, “The differing views were presented and James ruled. ‘They accepted James authority and leadership in the matter.” James ruling is shown by: “James responded: Brothers listen to me…my judgment is…” (Acts 15:13, 19)

Who made James the judge? He and his brothers were scoffers of Jesus. He missed three years of college from the Son of God. Not until the Resurrection did James accept Jesus.

Ezekiel, as you said “They accepted James authority and leadership…”

because he was raised a Nazirite and knew the Jewish laws by heart. ‘Foxes Book of Martyrs’, written in 1500 AD, says this about James:

“To him only was it lawful to enter into the holy place…asking remission for the people…worshipping God, and craving forgiveness for the people…He was…called ‘The Just’, and, ‘safeguard of the people’. The Jews, Scribes, and Pharisees, saying…we all give heed to thee that thou art just, and all the people do testify of thee that thou art just, and that thou doest not accept the person of any man.”

(If James did “not accept the person of any man”, he sure wasn’t about to accept the words of a fisherman.}

So WHAT HAPPENED? Let’s go back to verse 6, and understand there’s a lot of time between verse 6 and verse 7.

Verse 6, “Then the apostles and the elders assembled to consider this matter.”

Nothing is recorded of what was said at the apostle-elder meeting. I’m sure James had his opinion, but DID HE EXPRESS HIS VIEWS or did he wait until his “judgment” could not be debated in front of the multitude?

I’m sure their conclusion was given to the multitude and (Verse 7) “After there had been much debate, (Pharisees don’t give up easily) Peter stood up and said to them… (I believe he gave the same conclusion that had been reached in the apostle-elder meeting.)

Peter ended his speech in verse 11, and the next verse said, “Then all the multitude kept silence…”

I believe if the counsel had adjourned after Peter’s speech, the Catholic Church never would have existed.

FYI -- James McDonald spoke at SEBTS last Spring. I used to listen to him on the radio, but I am being more selective now because I'm so bored with the personal agendas of these people who support patriarchy.

Wanda,There are two James McDonalds, you know. The James McDonald who is in the SBC that lives either near or in Chicago, IL is not the same James Michael McDonald, V who moved to Peoria, IL (close to Springfield). JMM the V (husband of Stacy) claims that he was ordained in the SBC, but he could not produce his divorce decree or his ordination documentation when asked by the RPCGA (presby denom) who gave him only a provisional ordination before McDonald left under censure to form his own denom, the Covenant Presby Church Presbytery.

It would be a terrible insult to attribute James M Mc, V's activities to the James McDonald who is, so far as I know, a member in good standing in the SBC.

(And thanks for the blessing on my dh and me. He also got quite a kick/ blessing of laughter out of the Bucket/Abzug comments, recalling that when he was very young, he thought that Abzug and Buddy Hackett looked nearly identical. We had quite a laugh when he got a funny look on his face, saying that he did not think that D Patterson looked like Buddy Hackett!)

Thank you for writing. I know that I have received several emails from several single women who serve as missionaries in the SBC, one of whom studied at SEBTS (though I don't know if they were there when PP was there). I also heard from a couple of my friends who also were very upset about this issue of the Southwestern News, having graduated from SWBTS many years ago.

Some of them feel like second class citizens, and one graduate I know from SWBTS left the Baptist Church because her options were so limited. She said that she considered going back to the Baptist Church for awhile but decided against it. So I know that your comments are common to many women who I know and who have written to me over the past several months. I know that their hearts ache with yours.

May God continue to show Himself strong and mighty, especially to you and your sisters who share your pains.

And God bless everybody else, particularly the complementarians that we might all see clearly what direction the Church should take and find unity (rather than uniformity).

I don't put any significant time (days or weeks) between any of the discussions and I don't really see where there was a seperate meeting with the apostles and church leaders and later one that included the rest of the church. To me it all reads like a 12 hour business meeting with guest speakers in front of anyone that wanted to attend.

Not saying you are wrong or that I am right just telling you how it reads to me.

I am just wondering if the difference in the way we are looking at it doesn't boil down to the translations we are using. BTW, I am not KJV only. I have read it in KJV, ESV and NASB. Working on amplified right now.

Just not familiar with the beginnings of the catholic church or anything other than knowing they are long in pomp and show...pretty sure that isn't a good thing but then a Jewish christian that insisted on sacrifices, the law and circumcision would have prolly been a pretty big show as well.

I may take your advice and stop, but can't I express a longing to read something here that has to do with something else besides this tired subject?

I know you disagree because it is apprarently your every waking moments life's work.

Me? Well, I'm multifaceted you could say.

Tom - Not bitter, just bored. See comment to Lydia. Just trying to convey to Wade that not every woman wants to read about this, especially when the comments by the same people are just going in circles.

The following comment made my day. It also makes my commentary about those commenting constantly about the same topic all the while saying the same thing come to life.

"Honestly, I NEVER would have thought of that, and now I can't look at the picture WITHOUT thinking it.

Thanks to Homeschool Mom, this picture has forever been tarnished in my mind. I am VERY UPSET!!! Now we know how these women living under patriarchy think. :-("

From time to time, I feel moved to write from the perspective of my own faith tradition, not to confuse the issue, but just to clarify my own comments.

If I needed to make a judgment of whether or not to home-school, my religion would ask this of me:

1. Consider all the teachings of the Church. Consult with clergy if need be to clarify what the Church's position is on the issue.

2. Consider the REALITY of my own situation: what is my family facing? Our financial situation, my health, special medical needs of children that may require nursing care 24/7, either from a parent or hired, in-home nurse, needs of other children, our family's mobility due to husband's professional obligations, my own training to provide the children's educational needs. So much more to list . . .

3. MY CONSCIENCE. My God-given moral compass, that in the quiet moment of prayer, will direct me to the right decision for our family. CONSCIENCE must be obeyed.

So, from my faith, also THIS: the imperative to educate God's most precious gifts to us, OUR CHILDREN, to the maximum of their potential, whatever that potential may be. No expense is to be spared. No excuses to be given. We will answer to Him on the Day for our care of these, His most precious ones.

Isn't it best NOT to judge any mother for her choice? Some mothers MUST work. Are they then to be damned? Life is hard enough for women as is. Enough judging.

Time to think about the most vulnerable: as someone on this blog said, time to think about the children. L's Gran

Now, if I accept Dorothy's additional constraints on the roles of women in today's society, where would my family be?

It is only by the providence of a wise and omniscient God that I received a fine biblical education which enables me to support my family financially in light of my husband's disability. Would she have me stay at home and care for my husband, and allow my family to subsist below the poverty level? How does she harmonize her eisegesis (reading interpretation into Scripture) of the text with all those wisdom texts that instruct God's people to work diligently to support their families. Would she rather an able bodied, talented, God-gifted believer sit at home and collect public assistance because she is a woman?

Now Dorothy, through her understanding of women's roles, criticizes and convicts a substantial number of men in academic leadership positions. For it was at the invitation of and the approval by provosts, deans, trustees, and presidents that I taught my first college and seminary classes. As a master's student, I was first invited by the Provost of my institution to teach Hebrew to both men and women. Subsequently, I was encouraged by other male SB professors to pursue a doctorate and teaching as a career, then invited outside my institution to teach biblical Hebrew in another state. As I worked towards my doctorate, my department head assigned me classes to teach in seminary, some biblical and some language based exegesis, with the approval of those over him, all male. And, since God is sovereign and in control of all things, he knew our family's needs, and placed me in the position of teaching his Word in the original language. Now, shall Dorothy say that God was "wrong" in permitting me to sin in this way, and that, all of those men who facilitated my employment along the way were wrong as well? How can she challenge the authority of the very people she serves under, and who are more fit to lead than her, by virtue of their gender? Would she claim that these biblical scholars, who are certainly experts in the field of exegesis, were misguided and misled by the Holy Spirit?It seems presumptuous, at the very least, and not the least bit humble.

Dorothy makes no allowances for the stuff of real life, and the circumstances that families face, and she would much rather see children go hungry and without the basics of life than admit that often the circumstances of the family require that a woman take on additional responsibilities. I guarantee you, I do not drive a fancy car, or live in a splendorous home, and we eat chicken two or three nights a week just like other folks.

I would like to know if I followed her paradigm exactly, if she and PP would be willing to support my family financially?

My mistake in saying “there’s a lot of time between verse 6 and verse 7”.

Reminds me of having surgery and the Dr. told me to do lots of walking. At the time, I was running about five miles every other day, so the day after the operation, I walked three miles which caused major problems. The angry Dr. said, “I meant around the block!”

So, my “lots of time” meant “around the block”. I think the total council meeting may have lasted three or four hours; with a twenty minute break for the private (closed doors) apostle-elder meeting.

The ‘side’ yelling for circumcision were (verse 5):1. “Some of the men who had been Pharisees before their conversion…” (Living Bible)2. “Some of the believers from the party of the Pharisees…” (Holman Translation)3. “Some of the believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees…” (NLT)

I believe this “sect” or denomination were the roots of Catholics. Even thought they ‘accepted’ the “judgment” of James, they left the meeting believing as always (and Paul did too). Through the years ‘their thinking’ ruled, and they bragged to Paul (Acts 21:20) “My friend, you can see how many tens of thousands of the Jewish people have become followers!” (Contemporary English Version) and they are all zealous for the law.” (Holman)

History records Paul lost the battle that he warned about in Titus 1:10 “Many…say that ‘all Christians must obey the Jewish laws’…it blinds people to the truth, and it must be stopped.”

Ezekiel, got ahead of myself. It’s very important to realize Peter started his speech talking to the Pharisees and the multitude AFTER the private meeting.

After Peter had shamed the Pharisees and the multitude into silence, the decision of the private meeting got bamboozled by the speech of James.

Here’s an ‘imaginary’ conversation of the multitude before the counsel meeting.

“Can you imagine our leaders wanting to decide if Gentiles can become Christians? We’re God’s chosen people. Not those pagans. They’re dogs!” “But they say God’s Spirit has been given to everyone.” “Well, they will have to obey all our laws.” “Paul and Peter say anyone can go to heaven by the gift of Jesus.” “Outrageous! That’s what you can expect of a man who lives with Gentiles. Paul helped kill Stephen and put us in prison, now he’s blaspheming God’s laws. We ought to stone him. James’ friends got Peter in line until Paul brainwashed him. Let’s get James’ friends to object to this nonsense.”

You wrote: "Dorothy makes no allowances for the stuff of real life, and the circumstances that families face, and she would much rather see children go hungry and without the basics of life than admit that often the circumstances of the family require that a woman take on additional responsibilities."

COMMENT: That part about Dorothy not making allowances for 'the stuff of real life' is right on. I have been immersed in 'the stuff of real life' myself. My prayers are with you, dear Christian lady, and with your family. I hope your husband is better. L's Gran

In the creation story in Genesis 1 it is stated tht both male and female were made in God's image. In the creation story in Genesis 2 Adam was made to know that Eve was part of him, more alike than different. But ever since then people, men especially, just because they could, have emphasized the differences. Human men and women are more alike than different, but you'd never know it from what so many teach.

God gave me a womb and my children were born.God gave me my spirit and so I am able to let my spirit to soar up towards Him.God gave me my strength and I use it in His service. God gave me my intellect and I use it to help His children and His poor. God gave me my husband and I stand and work along side of him. God gave me the gift of faith to be used as my inspiration. God gave me my dignity and my honor, which I would not part with for a thousand deaths. (Or a thousand PP fatwahs.)

If God did not want to give me these gifts TO BE USED; why did he give them? He would not seek to confound us so! He must mean for women to develop all of our 'talents'.

I have read your comments, and I assume that I know your identity (Dr. K). I did not grow up Southern Baptist but have been a Southern Baptist for the last eight years.

I'm so embarrassed to admit that Paige and Dorothy Patterson were members of the first Southern Baptist church I ever joined. I will confess that I thought it was a good thing at the time. My family joined that church (which I will not name) on December 7, 1999, the day both of my daughters were baptized.

Prior to that church experience, I had been in a lukewarm Methodist church, and it became obvious that it was not a good environment for my husband and me to be raising our young daughters.

Not long after joining this Baptist church, I received a postcard in the mail from AnGeL Ministries announcing a new evangelistic outreach -- Just Give Me Jesus events to be led by Anne Graham Lotz. What wonderful news!

I was so excited that I took the postcard to church with me and could hardly wait to show it to the lady in charge of women's ministries. Of course, she was not on staff but served only in a volunteer capacity.

I will never forget what happened next. We were standing in the sanctuary, and as she reached for the postcard, she got a scowl on her face! Then she barked: "Women are not supposed to teach men!" I was so stunned I didn't know what to say! I had NEVER heard anything like that before. I said, "Well, maybe her target audience is women."

My heart became cold toward my church that day, and we did end up leaving when we could find another place to worship. I now find it ironic that I was a member of the same church as the Pattersons when the 2000 BF&M was adopted. Of course, the Pattersons were rarely in church on Sunday because they were always traveling around the country to fulfill speaking engagements.

I did hear Dr. Patterson speak at my church on a Mother's Day, and I went up afterwards to shake his hand. I told him the next time he saw Adrian Rogers to please tell him how much he had impacted my spiritual life. I can still picture the cowboy boots Dr. Patterson was wearing.

I have been feeling like a second-class citizen for quite a while now, and I'm really tired of it. My two daughters are almost grown, and I feel God calling me to serve Him in some other capacity. My husband and children have been my life and will continue to be, but I'm beginning to enter another season. Not to follow His call would be willful disobedience. I'm the one who must stand before God and give an account for what I have done for His glory, not anyone else. The SBC is moving so far to the right now that I'm not sure I can remain in a Southern Baptist church, and that makes me very sad because I love my pastors and congregation.

I only became aware of your situation at SWBTS within the last month or so. Since reading your comments here, I have been in a depressed state, and my heart is very heavy for you. I have Googled your name and have read articles about your losing tenure at SWBTS and your financial struggles.

I have just finished reading Wade Burleson's blog post from January 17, 2007, where he focuses on what happened to you at SWBTS. My heart breaks for what you have been through, and I will be praying for you, your husband, and your daughter. I believe in divine providence, and I pray that somehow you will receive the justice you so rightly deserve soon!

You wrote: "I have been feeling like a second-class citizen for quite a while now, and I'm really tired of it. My two daughters are almost grown, and I feel God calling me to serve Him in some other capacity. My husband and children have been my life and will continue to be, but I'm beginning to enter another season. Not to follow His call would be willful disobedience. I'm the one who must stand before God and give an account for what I have done for His glory, not anyone else. The SBC is moving so far to the right now that I'm not sure I can remain in a Southern Baptist church, and that makes me very sad because I love my pastors and congregation."

I read this with tears running down my face. It is a very moving testimony.

Tired subject? I repeat: who women are before God -or anywhere else - wait, is there anywhere else but before God? - may be secondary, tertiary, or even further down the line to males whose status is never questioned. For females, especially those who feel God is calling them (them, not through someone else) to any form of service other than one dictated by males, it cannot be less than primary, much as we might want to be able to deal with other things.

Unless we can serve freely as we feel called, we must fight this battle others have forced upon us. As long as some try to prevent this, this much be our first struggle before we can accomplish anything else.

"Unless we can serve freely as we feel called, we must fight this battle others have forced upon us. As long as some try to prevent this, this much be our first struggle before we can accomplish anything else."

It is even as hurtful to men as it is to women. For them, it is a snare as we have seen.

Something that is forgotten in respects to the artcle and the blog, is that the biblical passages presented in her paradigm should alwasy retain the liberty of God's grace in respect the personal consciences of every females in relationship to thir families and authority. Mrs Patterson can have such a great turst in her man and be commended in it. Others find it more difficult if they have been abused, especially by clergy. It is sad to see that there is not the strengthening of conscience for the sake of litigious interpretation.

To anonymous of 9:43pm (this system seems to be based in Pacific time)

Thank you and all the other males who understand and care about the status of women. Though women worked hard for such gains as voting rights, if not for sympathetic men all the suffering of those women (and others who fought for other issues) would have counted for nothing because those in power could choose to ignore them. It was the men who alone had the right to vote who voted for women's right to vote. Just a short time ago I read in the online Baptist Messenger an article against the effort to get equal pay for equal work.

And let's not forget One who did so much for women, though even to this time people who claim to be His followers treat women less well than He did.

I know what she is not. She is not a child. She is not chattel. She is not to be ordered about and beaten. She is not a 'home-bound' creature with few outings into the great world around her. She is not without a mind to develop. She is not without a voice to speak. She is not without a spirit to yearn for God . She is not without a soul.

The world that will come with the new far-far-right will be one in which, if a woman is lucky enough, she might be treated with the dignity of the oldest child in the family.

IF A WOMAN CANNOT SING THE SONG THAT IS WITHIN HER, SOMETHING IN HER DIES FOREVER.

WHAT REMAINS: AN OBEDIANT CHILD-LIKE SHELL THAT CONTAINS ONLY THE MEMORIES OF A DISTANT MELODY.

A young lady in my church, who had spent a four year stint in the military which was over about 18 months ago, recently decided she wanted to go back in - as a chaplain. She started school at Fuller last August, and joined a non-denom church, one that ordains women. That's the reality of women in our denomination who want to serve God in a way that's "outside the box" - have to leave the denomination to serve. Sad.

You said, "That's the reality of women in our denomination who want to serve God in a way that's "outside the box" - have to leave the denomination to serve. Sad.

Yes, it is sad.

The Body of Christ needs her to serve. Someday, when her denomination is healed, she can come home again. In the meantime, she has been given her 'orders' and she must obey her 'Commander-In-Chief'. The call to be a chaplain is a holy thing, not to be ignored.

I wrote a poem about responding to that call God places within all of us.

IF A WOMAN CANNOT SING THE SONG THAT IS WITHIN HER, SOMETHING IN HER DIES FOREVER.

WHAT REMAINS: AN OBEDIANT CHILD-LIKE SHELL THAT CONTAINS ONLY THE MEMORIES OF A DISTANT MELODY.

Your friend has a song to sing for the Lord. Be glad for her that she will have the chance. L's Gran

I think the premise that James changed his mind between the private meeting and the public one is incorrect.

Put yourself in James position. In the private meeting, Paul and Peter prevailed with some pretty convincing testimony and you yourself was reminded of a particular supporting scripture by none other than the Holy Spirit Himself. But that was the easy part.

Then you had to go to your congregation that was mostly converted, circumcised, law practicing Jews and tell them what you had decided.

You would have wanted Peter carrying the load for you. He had more authority being one of the original 12 disciples and he was the apostle carrying the gospel to the Jews while Paul was doing the same to the Gentiles.

After Peter had stunned the congregation with his speech, getting up and ruling like you did, in complete agreement with your earlier agreement behind closed doors, was a lot easier. Of course, you did delay a bit, just to see if they were going to throw Peter out the front door....

I know personally some, and know of many more, women who left the SBC to follow a calling denied them in the SBC.

For awhile women who felt called to ministries less traditional for women were able to do so within the SBC. Some still serve, though there is afoot a move to kick out all churches who have women pastors. I know of Baptist associations that treated badly churches who even dared to ordain women as deacons. Already some years ago the SBC leadership decided to no longer endorse women as chaplains, or at least not if they had been ordained. I know one woman who lost a chaplaincy job because her employer decided it would be better if she were ordained and her church would not do it. (I admit to suggesting she find another church.) Women who wanted to serve as chaplains had to find other agencies to certify them so they turned to CBF and to at least one state convention, maybe more, who took on the task of certifying them so that they could serve in the various organizations that have chaplains and require certification by a denominational body: the military, hospitals, etc.

However forgiving a spirit these women may have, are they likely to return to those who have treated them badly when others will welcome them and encourage them to use their God-given gifts? There are more useful things for them to do than to try to prove themselves to those who refuse to listen.

I remember my son telling me how the American Baptists would come to his college recruiting women students called to ministry, and suggesting this path to me. A Methodist friend urged me to come over to her denomination, which is the path many formerly SBC women called to ministry have taken. (I told her I could never baptize babies, so that path was closed to me.) I sometimes fear I will have to answer for not following one of these paths, or perhaps another similar.

I remember a comment made - probably only partly in joking - by a woman whose name some of you would recognize. It was something like this: I felt called to be a pastor but decided to remain a Baptist. This woman has served well in other ways for many years, but when I think of all she has done I wonder how much more she could have done if she had not been prevented by the "biological qualification".

So don't tell all people they should serve God when called, don't speak of such things as the Great Commission, and then tell half of those who respond that they must be mistaken and further try to deny God the use of their gifts.

I recently read an article bemoaning the number of pastorless churches. Yet many are denied this opportunity to serve because of something that has nothing to do with their gifts and willingness, often by the very ones who wish for more to serve. It makes no sense to me - but then I'm just a woman so what do I know.

Dr. Klouda,I’m ashamed my last comment was made five minutes after yours. It looked like I ignored you. I had worked on mine an hour or so and posted it before I saw yours. Also mine was off topic which I’m good at since the ‘world revolves’ around what I’m consumed. HA

I have longed for you to have justice, but the ruling by the judge lit the fire at the stake. Not ‘interfering’ between Church and State was a copout. I wonder if the ruling would have been the same if the law was broken against a MAN.

Once on Wade’s blog, I tried to organize a ‘march’ on SWBTS to give Patterson’s job to you but had only one volunteer. If today, I believe, with those making comments, there would be more. I believe you could get the job with a motto, ‘Impossible to do any worse’.

My only joy in your situation was contributing to Wade’s fund for you. I hope in the near future, the title of a great sermon, PAYDAY SOMEDAY, will apply to you.

Ezekiel,Hey! I agree James did not change his mind between the private meeting and the public one. Where did you get the idea he did?

I believe he and the elders sat there with their mouths closed while the apostles decided the question. James did not express his opinion until he had the backing of the multitude.

James would never have been allowed to speak if the rule of our deacons had applied in those days. Our rule is; if a deacon does NOT speak against a motion at the deacon’s meeting, he cannot speak against it when it’s presented for a vote of the church. The reason being if an objection is raised, it can be explored and handled a lot better in a small group than a large one.

(Does anyone else have this rule? I’ve been in churches that if the majority of the deacons decided something, the others were ‘forced’ to go along with it, but Robert Rules of Order allows the minority to speak.)

Exekiel, one thing we need to agree on: Was James’ judgment the same as Peter’s?

I believe it was until James said, “But”. Some translations say, “Except”. To me that word was the ‘knife in the back’ to the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by Peter and Paul.

You said, “He [Peter] had more authority being one of the original 12 disciples…”

I know we believe that, but in those days, James was the MAN!

Why do you think he was selected to be pastor if they didn’t think he had more authority than anyone else? Do you believe Foxe’s Book of Martyrs? At one time if you saw a Bible in a house, that book would be next to it.

Here is what Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch, said about James: {Wheaton College Library)

“I desire to see the venerable James, who is surnamed JUST, whom they relate to be like Christ Jesus in appearance, in life, in method of conduct, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb.”

Ahhhhh…how could Peter and Paul compete with that?

World’s Bible Handbook: “James was recognized as the ‘Bishop of Jerusalem.’ Many Jews felt, because of James’s influence among the Jews, that had he lived, he might have averted Jerusalem’s destruction.”

Josephus: “Ananus delivered James to be stoned…because of public outrage, King Agrippa took the high priesthood from Ananus. These miseries [Roman’s slaughter of Jews] befell them by the anger of God, on account that they had slain James the Just who was a most righteous person.”

Ezekiel, it seems James was more popular than his Brother. Where was the outcry when Peter and Paul were martyred, while James was holding down the fort in the holy place in the temple?

Birth of Christianity: “James was the authoritative leader of the Jerusalem mother-church, which was operating two major missions; one to the Jews and one to the pagans. In a combined community, such as that at Antioch, Christian Judaism had to prevail over Christian paganism. Peter and Barnabas presumed that kosher regulations were no longer important. Before James’s intervention, they ate with the pagans like pagans.”

Hmmmm…wonder who appointed the second bishop at Antioch to keep those pagans in line. That bishop might have been the first fundamentalist as he wrote:

“We ought to receive ever one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.”

Susie said, "The creation story in Genesis 2 Adam was made to know that Eve was part of him, more alike than different. But ever since then people, men especially, just because they could, have emphasized the differences. Human men and women are more alike than different. . . ." When I read that, it reminded me that a child psychiatrist told me years ago that she was occasionally ased to eveluate the intelligence of a chil;d too young to take the standard IQ tests. She told me that she would ask the child one question, "What are the suimilarities between a person and an ant?" Anyone can find lots of differences, she explained; it takes real intelligence to discover similarities between different things! What does this say about those who emphasize (overemphasize?) the differences between males and females in God's eyes?

From Anonymous 943I make my point on God's grace in reading the Scriptures and litigious interpretations....I thought about this awhile back...there were many places in the first centuries of the church where people worshipped that would not be considered kosher today. Have have been judges of other people's lives without understanding anything concerning their circumstances. I don't see how one can look at young women today and expect all of them to get married. I keep running into several that do want to get married but just keep having a serious of bad encounters. They should just serve God wholeheartedly and not worry about it like on the mission field.

You wrote: "Anyone can find lots of differences, she explained; it takes real intelligence to discover similarities between different things! What does this say about those who emphasize (overemphasize?) the differences between males and females in God's eyes?"

I believe that the structure of our souls and our spirits are the neither male nor female. If overemphasis on one's sex chromosomes causes beliefs that are harmful the the spirit of a woman, then how does this serve God? So much of the outcry of women in our world is because their spirits have been repressed and their souls insulted. One's dignity should never have to depend on a cultural interpretation from fundamentalism in any religion or society. Fundamentalism is the spirit killer. Fundamentalism is the soul killer.

Mr. Burleson, in reading one commentary of I Timothy 2:11-14, the commentator promotes this passage as instructions to Timothy for young couples and discipleship. The Greek word used by Paul for women here can be interchangable for wives. As I keep reading the text with that understanding it resonates of a more accurate of translation with the verses following to affirm its context. Furthermore, a general observation the early church would assume very litttle exposure to the Scripture.

Esther,I've heard that saying before.Others may like it. And it may be appropriate. But when I read it I think it sounds too much like manipulation.

Which might make sense if you consider that a person who feels powerless may resort to manipulation to get their needs met. Even if the only need they have is the need to not feel powerless, like everyone else determines their fate rather than they themselves.

Being female, I'd like to think that I have some areas of authority in my life so that I don't feel powerless and have to wrestle with what I would consider a sin, manipulation.

Welcome. I think I have heard your saying about the 'neck' turning the 'head' on a movie called 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding'. It is a very funny movie about women's issues set in the midst of an ethnic family with a patriarchal father. We all loved the movie here at my house, but then, we are a little bit peculiar ourselves. I understood the movie well, coming from an ethnic French Canadian background myself, where my father, and, before him, my grandfather (my p'pere) were definitely the heads of the Family.

Don't be nervous, just jump in and enjoy the fray. You will meet the nicest people here. I have learned much from the people on this blog, and I think they will help you, too. Again, we are glad you have come.

Some of the books published during the time I was struggling with the issue of women's status played into the submissive wife idea then promoted the idea of using a seeming submission to manipulate the relationship. Not very nice, not to say unchristian. I found them either laughable or appalling depending on my mood at the time of reading.

Sort of like what we did back in the dark ages of dating relationships (though with all the sexual activity going on, expected in some relationships now this may be a new dark age) when women would let men win when they played games. The first guy I stopped doing this and began to play to win was the man I married; wonder if that made a difference. I realize now, though only dimly then, that doing so was an insult to the man.

Manipulation has no place in a good relationship, though I expect is is prevalent in many so-called dominant-submissive marriages, simply as a defense mechanism. If you are always expected to give in, it is only human to seek ways around this when something is important enough.

How much better a relationship of equals, even if sometimes differences may take longer to decide than if only one member of the relationship is allowed to decide.

Susie, I agree with what you wrote. Can you imagine the confusion of one of your own children witnessing an extreme example of dominant-submissive patriarchal family life, if they had never seen it before? This happened to my daughter and it frightened her. She was invited to the home of a school acquaintance and witnessed the strangest scenes between the mother and the father. I listened to my daughter and it sickened me that she had seen a woman humiliate herself openly before her family in response to the demeaning behavior of the husband. My daughter did not understand any of this. I made sure she did not go back to that 'Christian' home.

I told her that sometimes people have beliefs that are different from ours and that her friend's family had a right to believe in their way.

I'm glad my daughter was shocked. She has a good heart for people; she was offended and upset by what she witnessed in that home. Something unwholesome and unhealthy was going on there in the name of 'godly behavior'.

To Anonymous,Your finding, http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm, was not for me. If you want to believe Baptists started with the Baptists’ name in the sixteenth century that is your privilege.

J.M. Carroll’s book, The Trail of Blood is my belief.

His book traces Baptists back to Ana Baptist in 251 AD. The Conservative Resurgence rejected his book because he gave evidence the three Epistles of John were written by Elder John and not Apostle John, and the start of ‘errors’ are shown in 3 John by large churches running over small churches.

At one time, Carroll’s picture hung on the walls of SWTBS as a respected historian. His chart showing the history of Baptists from the first one hundred years to 2000 was also displayed. Carroll died in 1931, and his great church history library was given to SWBTS.

The first of many names given to Baptists was ‘Ana-Baptist’ when they withdrew fellowship from the majority that started baptizing babies for salvation.

Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent, wrote in 1524: Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.”

Sir Isaac Newton: “Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome.”

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): “It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptist. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time. Tertullian was born fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.”

Some people’s minds are made up, so don’t confuse them with the facts. I would change my mind if someone could prove Carroll wrong with something besides their opinion.

Thank you for thoughts and analysis. I think they are accurate and I truly appreciate them, however, you should know that not all of the women interviewed were married with children. At least one was single. I want your article to be as accurate as possible (when I send it to people). Thank you.